FARO, Starrett, Pipettes, and LC: A No-Nonsense Guide to Choosing Measurement Equipment

Why There Is No 'Best' Measurement Instrument

One thing I've learned in nine years of approving measurement equipment purchases: there is no single 'best' precision instrument. A FARO arm can be exactly right on a shop floor and useless in a chemistry lab. A $200 set of calipers can last a decade, but it won't tell you whether a sample contains a contaminant. The question isn't 'what's the most accurate tool?' It should be 'what do I need to measure, and under what conditions?'

From the outside, buying measurement tools looks like a spec-sheet comparison. The reality is that environment, operator skill, and workflow decide whether a tool earns its keep. People assume expensive instruments deliver better results. Actually, reliable results are why vendors can charge a premium; the tool is only one part of the equation. In my first year as a purchasing coordinator (2017), I chose a high-end micrometer because it had the best spec in its class. It sat in a drawer because nobody on the shop floor trusted themselves not to drop it. That was a $1,400 lesson in matching equipment to people.

Scenario 1: Portable 3D Measurement for Large, Complex Parts

If you're measuring parts larger than a basketball, or parts with freeform surfaces, portable 3D measurement is usually the answer. This is where 'CMM FARO arm measuring machines' come into the picture. These systems combine an articulated measuring arm with a touch probe or laser scanner, letting you bring the measurement to the part.

There is a common confusion between an arm and a laser tracker. An arm has a fixed measuring volume based on its reach. A laser tracker measures large objects by tracking a small reflector across the room. If your work is all within a 3-meter radius, an arm is often easier to use. If you're aligning a large tooling fixture or measuring a 10-meter weldment, a laser tracker may be the better fit. Some companies end up with both, but most don't need both at the beginning.

What 'FARO CMM machine price' actually includes

What about FARO CMM machine price? New portable arms commonly range from $30,000 to $80,000 depending on arm length, accuracy class, and whether you add laser scanning. Used units show up in the $10,000–$40,000 range. Those figures are based on recent listings and vendor quotes as of January 2025, so verify current pricing before planning a budget.

The purchase price is only the entry ticket. Calibration, training, software subscriptions, and annual service can add 15–20% per year if you aren't careful. What I mean is that the 'affordable' used arm can become the most expensive piece on your floor if it comes without history. Ask for calibration certificates, software licenses, and a list of consumables before signing. Coordinate measuring machine accuracy is usually verified against ISO 10360-2. Laser tracker performance is covered by ASME B89.4.22. Ask for the test condition and the certificate, not just the marketing number.

Why I now insist on a demo

In September 2022, I approved an arm purchase for a rail-car component. The arm was accurate and within budget. We did not test it on the actual part. It turned out the access holes were too deep for the wrist to reach comfortably. The vendor offered a longer probe, but that changed the calibration setup. We ended up sending the arm back. That order cost $2,100 in shipping and restocking, plus a one-week delay.

So glad I got a demo with a real part before our last FARO purchase. I was one signature away from buying an arm with inadequate reach. A demo with a representative fixture would have saved months of frustration.

This doesn't mean portable arms replace every stationary CMM. If you have a high-volume inspection cell in a temperature-controlled room, a fixed CMM can still be the most efficient choice. But for mixed parts, large assemblies, or field measurements, portable systems turn a five-hour setup into a fifteen-minute start.

Scenario 2: Bench-Level Dimensional Checks: Calipers and Micrometers

Not every measurement problem is 3D. For edges, diameters, and flat surfaces, a good set of calipers or micrometers is often the most cost-effective tool. The question is not 'cheap or expensive?' It's 'does this tool have an accuracy spec, a calibration trace, and a user who understands its limitations?'

Where are Starrett calipers made? (and why that might not be the main question)

If you've searched 'where are Starrett calipers made' because you saw a 'Made in USA' sticker on a micrometer, here's what I can tell you. Starrett is headquartered in Athol, Massachusetts, and some precision tools are still made in the United States. However, certain calipers and lower-price-point tools are manufactured outside the U.S., often in China. The exact location depends on the product line. As of January 2025, the safest move is to check the packaging, the tool markings, or Starrett's official website for the specific model.

But the origin is not the real issue. I've seen no-name calipers hold calibration for two years, and I've seen a trusted brand's dial caliper drift after a small drop. The flag on the box doesn't guarantee calibration. What matters is whether the tool has a certificate and whether it's verified regularly. If you need to measure parts to ±0.001 inch, even a legendary brand needs routine calibration and reliable operators.

Why does this matter? Because calipers are often the most abused instrument in a shop. They're used as scribes, hammers, or wire cutters. I once ordered a dozen digital calipers for a production line. I had two hours to finalize the order before budget deadline. Normally I'd compare models. With the deadline, I chose the same model as before. The new model had auto-shutoff, so after lunch zeroing had to be re-established. The team wasn't trained; they took some measurements without zeroing. Not catastrophic, but it cost 30 minutes of rework.

Scenario 3: Volume and Chemistry Measurements: Scientific Pipettes and Liquid Chromatography

Now let's switch from solid parts to liquids. Scientific pipettes and liquid chromatography systems are often bought by a different team, but they belong in the same 'measurement equipment' budget. The common mistake is to apply the same buying logic: 'more expensive equals more accurate.' It doesn't.

Scientific pipettes: repeatability beats headline accuracy

When you're dispensing volumes in microliters, the pipette's advertised accuracy matters less than your daily technique. Adjustable pipettes drift, tips vary, and user technique can change delivery volume by 2–4%. If you're doing clinical or analytical work, the answer is not to buy the most expensive pipette on the catalog. It's to set up a pipette calibration schedule and use them consistently. The relevant standard for piston pipettes is ISO 8655.

I once ordered multichannel pipettes for a lab that was doing ELISA assays. They were great pipettes. Problem: the tips I ordered were not compatible with the brand. One box of tips, one week of scrambled results, a $580 restocking fee. The vendor's site said 'universal tips' but universal isn't universal for every pipette model.

Liquid chromatography: the method sets the spec

Liquid chromatography (LC) is a different animal. It separates and quantifies components in a sample. Here, the instrument choice should be driven by the analytical method, not by the product brochure. If you're running a regulated method, your LC system has to meet the method's system-suitability requirements. For example, pharmaceutical methods often reference USP General Chapter 621. A system that can't maintain mobile phase composition or injection precision will fail system suitability, regardless of its marketing name.

People assume automatic injectors eliminate human error. They remove injection variability, but they introduce carryover if the wash cycle isn't validated. In Q1 2024, I cost our lab a three-day delay because I approved a quote for a higher-pressure LC system than the method required. We paid for capability we never turned on. The vendor didn't stop us because we asked for a high-performance model. Lesson: write the method requirements first, then find the instrument that matches them. Don't start with a fixed budget and then stretch it into a bigger machine.

How to Know Which Scenario You're In

Instead of asking 'which instrument is best?', ask these four questions:

1. What kind of quantity am I measuring? Dimension, volume, or chemical composition?
2. What is the size and shape of the object? A thumb-sized pin is a different problem from a 6-meter assembly.
3. Where is the measurement happening? A lab bench, a quality-control cell, or a factory floor?
4. What tolerance or standard applies? ISO 10360-2 for CMMs, ISO 8655 for piston pipettes, or a validated LC method.

Then choose:

• Large, complex, on-site or difficult to move: evaluate FARO portable CMM arms or laser trackers. Budget for training, calibration, and a demo with your actual part.
• Small, dimensional, bench-level: a good caliper or micrometer with verified calibration history. Don't buy on brand name alone.
• Liquid handling: use properly calibrated scientific pipettes with compatible tips; measure your repeatability before trusting new equipment.
• Chemical analysis: choose LC based on the method requirements, not the system's maximum pressure or the vendor's brochure.

The goal is not to find the 'best instrument.' The goal is to find the shortest reliable path from question to answer. If you start with your actual workflow and your actual tolerances, you'll often find that the right tool is simpler—and sometimes cheaper—than you expected.