Two points, there has only been one honest to God gun safe (and it too used fireboard) that ever got a UL fire rating albeit a 30 minute rating, and that was from AMSEC about 10 years ago. They only kept it in production for one year and then went back to the same old crap of a 30 minute "factory" rating. I've never seen another safe since with this UL 30 minute rating.
UL has a few ratings that I think are useless. RSC being the first, and a 30 minute fire rating being the second. I'm not even sure they still have the 30 minute standard, as the only place I ever saw them in the past were the Sentry fire boxes.
As I'm sure you are aware, the various ratings listed by gun safe manufacturers are not based on common test criteria.
Which is where the UL comes in. They establish the benchmark by requiring specific minimum requirements.
Some show their temperature curves, some don't. That's about the only basis for a head to head comparison, so if you don't have that, you're just buying into a bunch of numbers that God only knows how were cooked up. Remember when Heritage got caught testing their safes having them flat on their backs?
Unfortunately, I believe almost every gun safe manufacturer cooks their own numbers in one way or another. Even when they are not cooking the numbers they are engaging in other dishonest behavior.
They could eliminate all of this confusion by obtaining a UL fire rating to go along with their UL listed locks and UL RSC rating. The problem is that the vast majority of gun safes are very, very far away from being able to pass the UL fire test (1 hour).
In regard to a safe having passed the UL RSC test, at least this gives a consumer independent verification that the safe will stand up to such a test. If you buy a safe that hasn't received this certification, you're just taking the word of a tool box maker turned safe builder that it will in fact do the job you bought it to do.
Which is why I think it's a joke when the manufacturers tout that they have it. If it's important for burglary, it's important for fire. If these safes are as good as the manufacturers claim, then why not have the UL fire rating too?
My main problem with the RSC rating is the lack of testing. The RSC test is a very restrictive test that limits the tools to a small hand held hammer and a long screwdriver/short pry bar. Why not test the safe against somebody kicking it or throwing golf balls at it? All are going to be equally ineffective.
The only way one would reasonably expect to gain entry into a safe using the tools that UL allows for the RSC test would be to punch a direct entry lock. Of course the requirement that the safe uses a UL listed lock eliminates that type of attack.
The other problem I have with the RSC rating is the range of safes it covers. I actually saw a video showing another "safe professional" talking about the differences between safes. He showed a B rate, a RSC, and a TL-15, and talked about the RSC being a better safe. In his particular demonstration, the safe he showed was a better safe, however, that's not what he said. You can't tell me that your average RSC manufactured by a gun safe company is going to outperform an unrated B rate safe, especially when that B rate is using twice as much steel.
Yep, I sure can. I know for fact that the safe submitted for testing by Pro-Steel/Browning did not pass the RSC test despite having a 12GA body, 3/16" plate door, and a UL listed S&G lock. They had to go back and make some changes before it would pass. I remember it well because they scoffed at how the listing was meaningless after Fort Knox was among the first (if not THE first) to get such a rating. In fact, I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with AMSEC.
I am not aware of any manufacturer submitting a failed safe, but would love to see any documentation detailing their failure.
You would almost have to try to purposely fail the test. Hammer....screwdriver....5 minutes. It's not rocket surgery. Not counting knocking the glass out, most car doors could pass this type of test.
Two points again. First, I assume you are a professional where your average home burglar will be anything but. Second, how exactly do you "break into" safes with RSC ratings (or without them for that matter)? Do you pry the doors open, cut the sidewalls, or do you drill one hole based on where the manufacturer tells you to do so? I can only assume it's the latter. Otherwise, I wouldn't want you working on my safe.
I do know more than the average burglar when it comes to safes, but the internet has come a long way in last few years. Any would be thief can watch videos all day long demonstrating how to break into "safes" that are commonly found in homes.
Knowledge is the first tool in my toolbox. Using proper diagnostic technics, you can open a safe without any damage. When that fails, the drill is the most often used tool in my box.
However, I have torn apart plenty of safes. A mechanic will probably only remove and replace the broken part on your engine. But on his way to becoming a mechanic, I would bet he tore an engine completely down and rebuilt it. I'm not much different than that mechanic, other than I have to fix your "engine" with the hood closed.
We routinely attack safes that are destined for scrap. This gives us a good basis for our understanding of how a safe is supposed to work. It's also a good stress reliever.
I can assure you the AMVAULT composite safes did NOT come with any holes. It's possible that could have changed since I've dealt with them, but most people do not want holes of any size drilled in a UL listed fire safe.
Most composite burglary rated safes are being used in commercial environments. The alarm companies are not capable of putting holes through these safes, so the factory installed holes allow them to wire their internal sensors without much greif.
The UL standard are pretty specific when it comes to holes in a UL listed safe, and they are allowed, although limited in size, location, and use. Another example would be anchor hole(s). Not only are they allowed, but they are required on the smaller units.
You're right, you can't compare commercial safes to RSC's. However, most safe buyers simply cannot use a commercial grade safe because of their weight. They are also quite small in terms of gun storage capacity. Add that to the difference in cost, and you have a safe that is neither wanted nor needed in the typical residential security scenario.
I would say you are half right. There are plenty of homeowners storing valuable paperwork, jewelry, media, and other items inside of gun safes when they shouldn't be. Many of these gun safe manufacturers lead consumers to believe their safes are commercial quality safes when they are not. As such, consumers are using them as such.
I agree that most people know very little about safes, and that is why I too chose to come onto this thread. You can't lump all RSC rated safes into the same category. Look at a Fort Knox Titan Series, for example, and you'll see a safe that has a body of solid 3/16" plate with an additional 10GA steel inner liner. The door starts with a solid 3/8" plate and finishes with a 10GA steel plate which encapsulates the fire insulation in the door and ties it back into the main plate. That safe has the same RSC label as their entry level Maverick series, but there's no doubt it would be far superior. Like I said, the RSC is a pass or fail test. That certainly doesn't mean that all safes wearing a RSC label are all the same.
Then again, there are gun safes without an RSC rating that are built to even higher standards. All safes are not the same. All safes with RSC ratings are not the same. But not all safes with RSC ratings are better than safes without them.
A couple of questions for you a1abdj. Have you ever explained to these folks what the UL TL15 or TL30 ratings mean?
Have you ever explained the criteria for a UL fire test?
Although I usually don't quote the UL standard word for word, I have explained these types of ratings in multiple occasions in the past.
