Sorry for not keeping up, but Easter was more important. The issue of fire resistance and gun safes is one that I too wish could be resolved, but it never will be unless the manufacturers all get together and come up with either a standardized test or utilize the services of a lab who will do that. Catchy names like "Mercury" or "Phoenix", to name a couple, are meaningless. To say that ratings offered by numerous gun safe manufacturers are without merit is laughable. Some are more straightforward than others in revealing how they came up with their numbers, but fireboard is very much an effective insulator. Fort Knox, for example (since it was mentioned), provides full data on their fire test which shows ramp up times and corresponding internal temperatures at specific time periods. In today's legal environment, don't think for a minute that they couldn't/wouldn't be taken to court over false advertising if they couldn't back up their numbers. Showing a photo of a safe on fire or one that has been through a fire is meaningless in determining how much protection it afforded or will afford. As for AMSEC, yes, they are one of the few companies who build gun safes that also build commercial safes. That hardly makes them immune to the same marketing strategies used by other gun safe manufacturers. Funny, I don't recall seeing any test parameters on their website where their BF series is concerned. Bottom line is (again), a safe is either UL listed for fire protection or it isn't. The BF isn't. What difference does it make that its big brother is a little thicker by virtue or more insulation and will get the UL certification? It's not as simple as that. Using a secondary safe, like the aforementioned Sentry, is something I've advised my customers to do for years, despite the fact I don't sell such products. Be aware that items such as film, computer disks, photos, etc. will still need additional protection even in a UL listed 1 hour safe.