AMSEC BF vs. Sturdy safe question

adirondack, when you mention 11ga and 14 or 16ga, I think you're referring to the Amsec BF safe (which weighs 1,682 pounds), not the RF6528 (which weighs 3,455 pounds). I think then that you and I can agree that the construction of the BF (the lighter) safe has been thoroughly discussed here. What I cannot find is a good discussion of the RF6528 safe. With such weight, how much steel can it have? If one compares the wall and door thickness of the RF6528 to the BF safe and knows that between the inner and outer layers is a composite filling, one can estimate the range of densities and therefore weights of that filling (unless they're adding lead or some other very dense metal to the filling).

So, when you have time, what are your thoughts about the steel thickness of the 3,455 pound RF6528 safe?

Thanks!

Jim

Hmm. A couple of days ago I wrote to Sturdy Gun Safe Co. asking if they could produce a safe for me which is equivalent in weight and protection to the Amsec RF6528. As of yet, no reply. I guess the answer is, "No, we can't."

If you left your phone number with Sturdy then dont be one bit surprised if Terry calls you personally.
He certainly called me at my home.
Imagine my surprise all kicked back in my recliner,cold beer in hand, and watching the Astro's lose their umpteenth game when he called.
The guy has worked with steel for years so I have no doubt he could build it or something at least as stout if your willing to pay for it.
Thing is once you get in that league of safes you might as well get a true UL rated TL-30 fire and burglary rated safe.

Are we wasting our time an money paying for fire insulation in gun safes for the home then? Sounds like it.

Click to expand...

I think gun safes should be made of thicker steel, and no insulation. This is where the Sturdy really shines. You can save money and simply buy a heavier steel safe without the insulation.

The problem is that most gun safe manufacturers are selling their safes as multipurpose safes when they aren't. Any fire lining will give you some protection, and a good material will give you better protection. However, the truth remains that no gun safe manufacturered today has met the strict UL fire standards. I wouldn't call insulation a waste of money, but I don't think it's a good value unless you're talking about a real fire lining (not gypsum board).

The photos I posted show this well. The little inexpensive Sentry with a UL rating protected its contents well during a very severe fire, when the gun safe with gypsum lining in a less severe fire failed miserably.

Hmm. A couple of days ago I wrote to Sturdy Gun Safe Co. asking if they could produce a safe for me which is equivalent in weight and protection to the Amsec RF6528. As of yet, no reply. I guess the answer is, "No, we can't."

Click to expand...

There aren't many gun safe companies that could. To build a safe that strong, you're talking about heavy plate, not sheet steel. They simply aren't set up to handle the cutting/welding/lifting, etc.

I must say that Sturdy called me today, but left no message. So, I shall call tomorrow and see what Terry says. In the meantime, I spoke to someone at Amsec who said the RF6528 has 1-1/2" plate in the door and 3/4" plate in the rest of the safe.

What do you think, knowledgeable ones?

must say that Sturdy called me today, but left no message. So, I shall call tomorrow and see what Terry says. In the meantime, I spoke to someone at Amsec who said the RF6528 has 1-1/2" plate in the door and 3/4" plate in the rest of the safe.

What do you think, knowledgeable ones?

Click to expand...

I think they're wrong. This isn't uncommon when you call AMSEC, as they build hundreds of different safes, and the people who answer the phones in customer service don't know much about the safe business.

Then again, would you really want a safe company giving out accurate information as to the construction of their safes to anybody who called on the phone?

The RF6528 is actually one of their AMVAULTs refitted as a gun safe. It's a composite safe, which by nature, has very little steel in it. Same is true with many modern day bank vaults. Even the nice looking "stainless" doors are wrapped chunks of "cement" composites.

I can’t respond to everything I want to, so please contact us if you have any questions.

The only thing that people seem to argue back and forth over is your fire rating or material. You guys do have that crappy video showing the house fire but its not the best PR piece. Im sure in sunny CA there are enough houses that fire departments burn down for practice or even their "Fire Training Houses" to prove one of your safes with a good video.
Lberty has a video were they put some wood simulated guns and some dollar bills in one of theirs and burn it up for about 45 minutes or so. People ohh and ahh over it.

Click to expand...

Ca is full of liberals, who will not let the arson investigators burn like they did when we tested potential fire insulators. They now do them few and far in between, with a lot more restrictions. We are currently looking into seeing if it‘s possible to do again, but you need to understand the difference between a normal house fire and one of these controlled burns. In a normal house fire, the fire department will more than likely show up within an hour and quench things down. In the fire investigator controlled burns, they want to burn the house down as quickly as possible, using ways to hurry up the burn time (which increases the temperature) and they quench the site down after the burn. This makes the test less realistic. Not only that, people can easily say we influenced the outcome of the burn, because they couldn‘t watch the whole thing for them selves. The best tests are the real accidental burns, which we have gone through successfully and we have testimonials of the firemen who reported to that blaze, most of which bought safes from us soon after.

Liberty let it burn for 45 minutes then opened the safe right away, allowing no cool down time. In reality, no one will let you near that safe until it has completely cooled down, and your stuff will be long gone before then.

AMSEC uses the drylight in their smaller BF series safes that do pass the most strict testing available to safes today, and they're built in a very similar fashion to the larger gun safes. They certainly aren't using 5" of fill, and they have a UL tag.

Click to expand...

Sounds like your still saying Amsecs smaller UL Fire Safes are being made virtually the same way as their gun safes, which is very incorrect. How can you still believe this, yet you have even said so yourself, “if you want a safe to protect items from a fire, get a "Fire" safe. If you want to protect items from a bad guy, get a burglar resistant safe.” Show me a picture of an AMSEC GUN SAFE, not a small UL fire safe with 5” or more of cement fill, go through a good fire. We have proof our fire safes make it through standard fires on our site.

Out of the thousands (literally) of safes with UL ratings, from hundreds (literally) of safe manufacturers, why can't anybody point me to just one that uses ceramic as it's primary insulator? If it worked as advertised, certainly somebody would be using it.

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention earlier; This is a little past your time Frank (because your 30 yrs old right?), but at one point, Asbestos was the fire insulator that manufacturers used because it was most effective as well as cheap. Now a days, people use ceramic to replace Asbestos and it’s not cheap, therefore, less use it.

I spoke to someone at Amsec who said the RF6528 has 1-1/2" plate in the door and 3/4" plate in the rest of the safe.

Click to expand...

Since no one (not even AMSEC mfg reps) can tell what the safes gauge really is, lets pretend this Amsec RF6528 was made with a 1.5” thick door, ¾ body and ¾ inner liner.

¾ inch steels weight per sqft is 30.6 lb.
1.5 inch steels weight per sqft is 61.26 lb.
Dimensions of this safe 72 x 35 x 29.5

A 6ft by about 3 ft (back wall) of ¾“ will weigh 550.8 lb.= 18 (area) x 30.6 lb. (weight per sqft)
TWO 6ft by 2.5 ft (side walls) of ¾ “ will weigh 918 lb. = 15 (area) x 30.6 lb. (weight per sqft) x 2 (both sides)
TWO 2.92 ft by 2.46 ft (top and bottom wall) of ¾ “ will weigh 440.64 lb. = 7.2 (area) x 30.6 lb. (weight per sqft) x 2 (both sides)
Now, I guessed the door size to be about 5.5ft by 2.5ft of 1.5” steel, which would weigh 842.33 lb. = 13.75 (area) x 61.26 lb. (weight per sqft)

Already, the weight is 2751.77. Leaving only 648.23 lb. for the weight of the ¾ inner steel liner, cement filler, linkage and frame in the door. We feel adding the weight of what was left out should double the 2751.77 lbs already calculated. I realize that my estimation of area may be slightly off due to the fact I’m using od dimensions all the way around, but not by that much when considering I’m not even adding in the weight of what was left out. We feel you should be leery of buying a safe when not really knowing what gauge thickness it is your getting. When a manufacturer doesn't out right say on their websites what gauges they are using, don't ASSUME what it is. If it was any gauge thickness to boast about, they would be boasting about it.

Sounds like your still saying Amsecs smaller UL Fire Safes are being made virtually the same way as their gun safes, which is very incorrect.

Click to expand...

I'm saying the AMSEC BF series fire & burglary safes (that carry UL ratings) are being made virtually the same way as their BF series gun safes, which is entirely correct.

The smaller BF safes have a wall thickness 5/8" thicker (2 5/8" total) than that of the gun safes (2" total), but some of that is due to the thicker dual 1/8" walls being used. The BF series gun safes obviously use slightly lighter walls. The same composite fill material is used on both the smaller safes and the gun safes.

Both safes have 1/2" plate doors, but the gun safe doors are slightly thicker overall. All four of the smaller safes carry a UL fire tag. None of the gun safes do.

Show me a picture of an AMSEC GUN SAFE, not a small UL fire safe with 5” or more of cement fill, go through a good fire. We have proof our fire safes make it through standard fires on our site.

Click to expand...

I have some. They've survived well compared to your average gun safe. I will need to obtain permission to post them, but would be happy to do so. I have some photos of the smaller BF safes after fires as well, and if I already have permssion for those I will edit this post with them.

This is a little past your time Frank (because your 30 yrs old right?), but at one point, Asbestos was the fire insulator that manufacturers used because it was most effective as well as cheap.

Click to expand...

Asbestos has been used, but it is not very common at all. Off the top of my head I can think of a handful that used it around the 1940's (Safe Cabinet, Scientific, Shermann Rand), and only a few that used it prior.

Although there are a number of safes out there with asbestos in them, they are not as common as most people think. The vast majority of older fire rated safes used some sort of plaster based mix, micah, fire clay, chalk, or alumina. Newer safes use some of the same old technics, and others use a mix, or entirely knew technology.

Now a days, people use ceramic to replace Asbestos and it’s not cheap, therefore, less use it.

Click to expand...

I've asked, but nobody including yourself has answered. Which safe manufcturer (we can exclude gun safe manufacturers to make it easier) builds a safe with a UL rating that uses ceramics as its primary insulation? If you want to expand that to the world, I will even accept a safe that carries a major rating in its country of manufacture. I have looked and can't find any.

I also can't believe that it has anything to do with costs. This may be true for a $150 Sentry (which is an excellent fire safe by the way), because the wouldn't be able to stuff $200 worth of insulation into a box that they sell for less. However, I can show you $200,000 safes that don't use it either, and surely cost is not an option there.

Since no one (not even AMSEC mfg reps) can tell what the safes gauge really is

Click to expand...

I could tell you what it is. I have a few here at the shop.

I’m not even adding in weight of linkage and frame in the door, or the thickness of the fire liner itself.

Click to expand...

The RF6528 has no fire liner. The composite fill material is both the fire and main burglary barrier. The shell of the safe simply makes a nice looking paintable surface.

We feel you should be leery of mfg. who are not out right saying on their websites what gauges they are using. If it was any gauge thickness to boast about, they would be boasting about it.

Click to expand...

True with gun safes. Not true with commercial safes (which is really what the RF6528 is).

adirondack, when you mention 11ga and 14 or 16ga, I think you're referring to the Amsec BF safe (which weighs 1,682 pounds), not the RF6528 (which weighs 3,455 pounds

Click to expand...

My apologize jimbabwe, I did mistakenly think you were talking about the BF series so my numbers are way off. Alyssa did a really nice job of estimating the amount of steel in the HS series RF6528 and her numbers seem realistic based on information we know about AMSEC's "composite" burglary / fire protecting universal fill stuff. It is interesting that according to AMSEC's website though, the RF6743 has a 1" outer steel shell and a 1" inner shell but the RF6528 doesn't mention anything about plate thickness only that it's door is ARMOR plated. So does that mean the same thickness but different alloy? Same thickness and alloy but higher strength tempering? Thicker plating? I guess what really matters is that it has a higher UL burglary rating: TL-30 verses TL-15 so it's a pretty strong safe without a doubt.

With all due respect to Sturdy Safe and the great products they provide that the majority of us can afford, the RF6528 is in a different league entirely. In Sturdy Safe's defense though, for the cost of one RF6528 you could get two Sturdy Safe's with their options pretty much maxed out and split up your collection to two separate locations.

Yet it's not used on UL rated safes as a primary insulation (UL-72 for data storage). Comparing the science behind a vault is completely different than a free standing safe. Even a small vault (say 10x10x8 interior has 800 cubic feet of air space contained inside it (air is a good insulator). The largest double door data safes have only 20 cubic feet or so of air space.

Click to expand...

Frank, a cube is a cube. Whether it's a data fire safe 2'x2'x2' or a vault 9'x9'x9' they are tested the same way based on NFPA 75 class 125 (UL-72, ASTM E-119 blah blah blah) with heat being applied to all six sides and so proportionately the same relative surface area of exposed sides absorb heat in proportion to the volume of interior needing to be protected (actually for the data safe in your example with a safe and an inner insulated container within the safe the ratio of heat transfer from exposed sides to content volume shows the ceramic fiber vault insulation design superior). As to air being a good insulator, yes I absolutely agree ... when it's in a sealed volume that's separate from the area you want to be insulated as in the case of triple paned windows. If the air is in the same space that your are trying to insulate, it is not insulation at all but rather the medium that will transfer heat from the hot spot to the cool spot as in the case of a convection oven although in a safe/vault case it would be natural convection and not forced air convection. I do agree with you that on the larger dimension vaults where the vaults achieve fire protection greater than any data safe can achieve (according to Firelock's website http://www.firelock.com/overview5.htm) the added air space does help achieve longer temperature-time ratings. Since the UL testing has temperature sensors (thermocouples) placed right on the cold side of the heated walls, the reason for the higher time rating from the larger room is likely due to natural air convection and the fact that more cool air is available to draw heat away from the inner walls where the thermocouples are placed.

Are we wasting our time an money paying for fire insulation in gun safes for the home then? Sounds like it.

Click to expand...

Well I don't think it is wasting money having effective fire insulation (especially if it is a real fire insulator like ceramic fiber) in a gun safe but I do think in pretty much all cases the fire insulation of your gun safe could easily and cheaply be enhanced with a few sheets of gypsum (x rated if possible) placed on as many exposed external surfaces as you can place them but just remember to stagger the seams of the boards.

Gypsum on the inside of a gun safe isn't a good idea in my opinion. Think about it, as the gypsum heats up and steam is driven out (happens with concrete too) the pressure inside the safe will increase and so too will the boiling point of water and this will usually continue until eventually the expanding door seal you spend extra money for will fail releasing the pressure of the interior to the environment but then the super heated air from the fire will now be able to enter the safe.

In Sturdy Safe's defense though, for the cost of one RF6528 you could get two Sturdy Safe's with their options pretty much maxed out and split up your collection to two separate locations.

Click to expand...

For a commercial comparison, the Sturdy units would be considered lighter than a true B rate, but let's assume you could get a full $50,000 worth of inurance on each for a total of $100,000. A TL-30 rated safe could easily get three times that total. That's how much of a difference there is from a security standpoint.

Frank, a cube is a cube. Whether it's a data fire safe 2'x2'x2' or a vault 9'x9'x9'

Click to expand...

In a real fire, the size will certainly matter. Temperatures 2 feet off of the floor are going to be very different than temperatures 9 feet off the floor. This is one of the reasons UL testing is required by most insurance companies when it comes to insuring contents. UL testing pretty much tests everything at an absolute worst case scenario, so your individual odds of avoiding disaster are pretty good.

You're probably better at math than I am, but I don't think the cube is a cube regardless of size would hold true in this case.

Using your example, of a 2'x2'x2' cube, let's assume the walls of that cube are 5" thick. In this case you would have a total surface area on all six sides of 4,456 square inches, with an internal volume of 2,744 cubic inches. This gives you .62 cubic inch of air space to protect from heat for every 1 square inch of surface area.

Using your example of a 9'x9'x9' room, lets assume the walls are 10" thick. In this case you would have a total surface area on 5 sides (we will assume a ground level vault on a slab) of 58,320 square inches, with an internal volume of 681,472 cubic inches. This gives you 11.68 cubic inches of air space to protect for every 1 square inch of surface area exposed. Even if you applied heat to all six sides (69,984 square inches), you're still protecting 9.74 cubic inches of air space for every 1 square inch of surface exposed to heat.

So which cube will heat its interior air volume faster? This may just be some common sense, but it appears to me that the smaller cube needs to transfer heat slower than the larger cube. Perhaps that is why the small cubes are using a cement fill as their primary insualation, and the large cubes (at least the ones in your example, because most vaults are still constructed of composite cements) can get away with using ceramics.

Well I don't think it is wasting money having effective fire insulation (especially if it is a real fire insulator like ceramic fiber)

Click to expand...

We have established that UL is a good source for determining what is and is not an effective fire insulation. Still waiting for that example of a UL rated safe that's using it (or any other safe from any other country with a similar rating).

Although gun safes tend to be sold on price alone, commercial safes and others exposed to high risk do not. Many of my customers don't care what the cost is, they want the best product that will serve their needs. Surely some major manufacturer would be using this wonder material if it was better than what they were currently using.

Gypsum on the inside of a gun safe isn't a good idea in my opinion. Think about it, as the gypsum heats up and steam is driven out (happens with concrete too) the pressure inside the safe will increase and so too will the boiling point of water and this will usually continue until eventually the expanding door seal you spend extra money for will fail releasing the pressure of the interior to the environment but then the super heated air from the fire will now be able to enter the safe.

Click to expand...

Other than some of the best fire rated safes operate on the same principle that you denounce. This possibility is also covered by UL testing.

Are we wasting our time an money paying for fire insulation in gun safes for the home then? Sounds like it.

Click to expand...

How close is the fire department? Are they a few minutes away? Then, yeah, fire insulation is useful.

Will it take them an hour or so to get to your place (that's the "quick" response time for my place.). I don't think so...everything of mine's going to be ruined anyway, no matter if the safe has a dubious "30 minute" fire rating...

I'm seriously considering using the backhoe to scoop out a big hole and build a concrete vault room in the backyard to use as a storm shelter and serious gun storage...layered security, heavily alarmed, hidden entrance...

I'm seriously considering using the backhoe to scoop out a big hole and build a concrete vault room in the backyard to use as a storm shelter and serious gun storage...layered security, heavily alarmed, hidden entrance...

Click to expand...

Avenger29,

It's funny you say that because I have decided to do the same thing myself, well sort of ... I've been putting off building a house for a couple years now due to the economy but my original design called for a vault built with ICF (Insulated concrete forms) as a room within the basement. Then it occurred to me, since the basement will be below grade anyway, way not build a buried vault as a room attached to the basement. It will be easy to conceal and will be little effected by a fire within the home.

All four of the smaller safes carry a UL fire tag. None of the gun safes do.

Click to expand...

Ok, just making sure your not saying amsec's UL Fire Rated safes are made the same as their non UL Fire Rated gun safes.
Thanks for your feedback on all this Frank, you’re the best.

…waiting for that example of a UL Fire rated safe that's using ceramic

Click to expand...

I looked into it. At one point in time, when the Honeywell name brand safes existed, they made their 2754DB with Kaowool (Which is CERAMIC) and got it UL Classed 350 at 45 minutes up to 1100F. I called a guy who used to sell them, and they said it was lined with gypsum board and kaowool. However, not all walls were covered with the Kaowool and we do not know how thick of ceramic they used. Again, this was not the mfg, this was just a salesmen, so we still need to take this info lightly. Look at this search to see where else it was listed at one point.

I have some. They've survived well compared to your average gun safe. I will need to obtain permission to post them, but would be happy to do so. I have some photos of the smaller BF safes after fires as well, and if I already have permssion for those I will edit this post with them.

Click to expand...

I’m sure everyone would like to see.

I could tell you what it is. I have a few here at the shop.

Click to expand...

Looks like you had already addressed it was a “composite safe, which by nature, has very little steel in it”. I hadn’t seen that. My bad for the rant of “proof it didn’t have that much steel in it“. Terry (the owner of Sturdy) still has no problem with burglary safes such as the UL listed TL safes. We feel they are good theft resistant safes, regardless of steel thickness, if you can afford the price and weight.

Other than some of the best fire rated safes operate on the same principle that you denounce. This possibility is also covered by UL testing.

Click to expand...

Terry was told by UL testing facilities, to not bother fire testing a safe lined with just sheetrock/fireboard.

Thanks for your feedback on all this Frank

Click to expand...

It can get pretty confusing pretty quickly. AMSEC alone probably makes 10 different lines, each with multiple models, that carry some sort of fire rating. Multiply that times the hundreds of manufacturers that have existed, and you can quickly see how it becomes confusing.

The smaller BF safes, the ones with the UL fire rating, are built in a very similar fashion to the larger BF gun safe. I'm pretty sure the BF gun safe does not have a UL rating, because it wouldn't pass. Same as all of the other gun safes on the market.

However, I do know that the material used in the safe is very effective, as it is in fact used in UL rated units, and has been tested to their standards.

you’re the best

Click to expand...

That is the word spreading around the modeling circles.

I looked into it. At one point in time, when the Honeywell name brand safes existed, they made their 2754DB with Kaowool (Which is CERAMIC) and got it UL Classed 350 at 45 minutes up to 1100F

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar, word for word, with every UL standard. These standards have also changed from time to time over the years.

However, I don't recall any 45 minute UL ratings. UL ratings are usually 1 hour, 2 hour, 4 hour, etc. The temperature also seems very low, as all of the UL test that I'm familiar with bottom out at 1,700 degrees, and go up to 1,800 degrees for the longer ratings. The 30 minute ratings do drop the temperature to 1550 degrees, and although these ratings can be found on safes, it's pretty rare. Most of the 30 minute ratings on on smaller fire boxes.

I did find a safe using the same model number (may or may not be using the same construction), and it does state it has a 30 minute rating at 350 degrees. I don't see any UL ratings mentioned though. If you know anybody who has one, I would be interested in the numbers listed on the UL tag.

I’m sure everyone would like to see.

Click to expand...

I don't mind sharing photos. Some I simply can't share. Others, I need to get permission from those that took them, and sometimes that's like pulling teeth.

Terry was told by UL testing facilities, to not bother fire testing a safe lined with just sheetrock/fireboard.

Click to expand...

No sense in throwing your money down the drain. You will never pass a safe lined with gypsum board, as it simply isn't up to the task.

I own an Amsec BF series gun safe, by the way you can get a lot of rifles and shotguns in a safe by putting silicone gun socks on them and putting half of them barrels up and half of them barrels down, after taking out the interior racks.

My gunsafe is bolted to the floor and I have a monitored alarm system for fire and burglars, and the fire dept and police dept are just minutes away, I donate to them and have personal friends who work both depts. I have a dog and am an ex paratrooper Viet Nam veteran with extensive combat experience and am always armed, heaven help anyone stupid enough to try and break in while I am there.

What if I build a closet around my gunsafe with a door and built of sheetrock and ceramic wool or even firebrick, would that not be a cheap and effective way to gain additional fire proofing?

Are we wasting our time an money paying for fire insulation in gun safes for the home then? Sounds like it.

Click to expand...

How soon will the fire department get there? Are you in the sticks, where your house will burn to the foundation? What's your house made of? Concrete block? Log home?
I think all these things are a factor. I few minutes might be all time the fire department needs. Then you will be glad you had some fireproofing.
The problem is, salesmen will show you pictures of the worse case scenario. "See, my $10,000 safe is better." Well, yeah, but while I'm saving for that $10,000 safe, my guns got stolen out of the desk drawer.
It's all a compromise.

I have an insurance policy with a $1000 deductible. If my guns are destroyed or stolen, I get brand new ones with my insurance money. For me, it doesn't make sense to spend more than $1k on a safe. If I had irreplaceable items or more than the insurance would cover, that would be different.

Seeing how most residential safes don't last longer than a few minutes extra on the expensive models, the extra money spent on a safe doesn't seem worth it.

So for me it is either a <$1K safe, or a $10K+ safe.

Jake

So for me it is either a <$1K safe, or a $10K+ safe.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of in between.

For example, I have some really nice used TL-15 and TL-30 safes, large enough for guns, that start in the $3,000 range. New, imported burglary units start in the $5,000 range.

So essentially, if you can find one, you can get a used real safe for about $1,000 more than a mid range gun safe. Not only will these safes far surpass the security of a gun safe, but many of them have decent fire ratings (the composite versions).

It's all a matter of finding somebody who's really in the safe business, and giving them a call. You might be surprised.

Used would be a good idea. When I went shopping at a safe store, I wasn't too impressed by the mid-range ($500-$2K). Didn't see much above $2K except bells & whistles. It wasn't until I saw the Graffunder line with plate steel (or was it slate rock) that I finally felt that a safe was actually a safe. The rest were just sheet metal. It seems these days anyone can get a wheel grinder cheap. I figure anyone can get into a mid range safe in a matter of minutes with some power tools from Harbor Freight.

My other criteria is warranty. Perhaps a burglar fails to enter the safe, but leaves the safe damaged. Having it replaced by the manufacturer's warranty would be nice. One less thing for me to worry about.

But the main point is my insurance policy will replace everything and anything for $1K. So why spend more than my insurance policy (assuming everything is replaceable by the insurance policy, which I've checked)?

Jake

My other criteria is warranty. Perhaps a burglar fails to enter the safe, but leaves the safe damaged. Having it replaced by the manufacturer's warranty would be nice. One less thing for me to worry about.

Click to expand...

This is another issue I have with safe manufacturers. The reality is that your homeowner/renters policy is first in line to pay for the loss of a safe (and or its contents) in the event of fire or theft. Although these companies do replace safes themselves, it isn't very common, and is why they offer to do it in the first place. The reality is it's good marketing. Everybody thinks they need a replacement warranty.

What other products offer a similar warranty?

But the main point is my insurance policy will replace everything and anything for $1K. So why spend more than my insurance policy (assuming everything is replaceable by the insurance policy, which I've checked)?

Click to expand...

If you're talking common assets, then there's no real reason to spend any more than you need to in order to keep them reasonably secured.

However, I own a lot of stuff that's worth nothing, but yet it has great sentimental value to me. Insurance could never replace those things. I also keep paperwork that has no real monetary value, but is also very important. Even though things like titles and deeds can be replaced, it's still a pain to replace them.

I have an insurance policy with a $1000 deductible. If my guns are destroyed or stolen, I get brand new ones with my insurance money. For me, it doesn't make sense to spend more than $1k on a safe.

Click to expand...

That all depends. How much is your firearm collection worth? The reason I ask is that most insurance policies only cover up to $10,000 for firearms loss unless you pay extra for more protection.

That all depends. How much is your firearm collection worth? The reason I ask is that most insurance policies only cover up to $10,000 for firearms loss unless you pay extra for more protection.

Click to expand...

How about another angle.

Let's say your guns are stolen, and one is used to kill a 7-11 clerk. The clerk's family finds out you "weren't storing your guns properly", which made them easy for the bad guy to steal, and sues you for some sort of negligence. Granted it's a BS suit, but you would still have to pay to defend yourself.

Do you have a policy that does that?

Great point. I know from experience how expensive and annoying it is to defend myself when innocent (a civil lawsuit where the plaintiff sues everyone they can think of and list you on the court papers). And the law in this country doesn't make it easy nor cheap to defend ourselves.

I'm not suggesting no security, just nothing that goes above my deductible or the worth of the contents.

What if I build a closet around my gunsafe with a door and built of sheetrock and ceramic wool or even firebrick, would that not be a cheap and effective way to gain additional fire proofing?

Click to expand...

Absolutely PH/CIB, and if done properly it is an approved fire rated assembly by building code. Build your closet with 5/8" type X (fire rated) gypsum two layers on the outside of the stud and two layers on the inside and the same for the ceiling, put a fire rated door on the closet and you now have better fire protection for your collection than you'd find in pretty much any fire rated safe (of course have the closet on a ground floor).

Using your example, of a 2'x2'x2' cube, let's assume the walls of that cube are 5" thick. In this case you would have a total surface area on all six sides of 4,456 square inches, with an internal volume of 2,744 cubic inches. This gives you .62 cubic inch of air space to protect from heat for every 1 square inch of surface area.

Using your example of a 9'x9'x9' room, lets assume the walls are 10" thick. In this case you would have a total surface area on 5 sides (we will assume a ground level vault on a slab) of 58,320 square inches, with an internal volume of 681,472 cubic inches. This gives you 11.68 cubic inches of air space to protect for every 1 square inch of surface area exposed. Even if you applied heat to all six sides (69,984 square inches), you're still protecting 9.74 cubic inches of air space for every 1 square inch of surface exposed to heat.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you realize this Frank, but your numbers prove that the ceramic fiber structure is superior to your "cement" filled safe. That seems about right to me considering that ceramic fiber is actually designed to be a fire / thermal barrier and the "cement/concrete/composite" stuff just happens to resist heat transfer to some extent. I am pretty confident, without doing any research, that the inner chamber on those class 125 media safes are not made of cement in any way shape or form.

I haven't done much research one this either but from what research I have done, ceramic fiber insulated vaults are the only UL listed structures that can achieve class 125-4 hour rating. That as you know has the temperature of the furnace reaching 2000F before shutting off for the long cool down period which can take days. Here's one for you, is there a cement/concrete/composite insulated structure that can meet NFPA 75 UL class 125-4 hour rating? My guess is that it wouldn't be possible but I could be wrong.

Terry (the owner of Sturdy) still has no problem with burglary safes such as the UL listed TL safes. We feel they are good theft resistant safes, regardless of steel thickness, if you can afford the price and weight.

Click to expand...

Alyssa, I can only imagine Terry's frustration with the UL rating system. If you guys were to get your safe's rated, UL would probably just give your safes an RSC rating (although B rated just states door less than 1" steel and body less than 1/2" steel with the unwritten standard being 1/2" door 1/4" body, right?) I do own one of your safes and it is very well built (the door design is genius btw). I am confident it will not be opened using pry bars, a fire ax, a sledge hammer or basically any brute force attack which was what I was looking for when I purchased mine a couple years back. From seeing photos and videos of some actual RSC rated safes opened with relative ease, who would want to be included in that category anyway?