As I understand it, the UL labs testing is a gimmick and not representative of a real house fire.
If U.L. were a gimmick, banking institutions, government agencies, businesses and many others wouldn't trust it, nor get insurance coverage. Are you going to take the word of Sturdy or the rest of the world who insures probably hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in value?
Don't quote me on the numbers, I'm making them up to make a point. Call an insurer and ask them whether they'll insure the contents of your RSC or if they'll require a U.L. label.
A non-U.L. approved phone power cord recently killed a woman in China. Ok, I'm stretching it now, but you get the point. Engineering/manufacturing relies on standards (or has imposed standards), etc.
Sturdy does real testing on their safes. And here's a burndown where the safe contexts (even the paper and plastic) survived.
http://www.sturdysafe.com/firelinertestcompare.htm
http://www.sturdysafe.com/fireliner.htm
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_46/355967_.html
Cheaper safes us non ceramic fire proofing, like gypsum board. Sturdy uses ceramic wool blend, which are more expensive. Does NASA use gypsum for re-entry, or ceramics?
There are plenty of pictures out there which show that even RSCs using gypsum boards for fire protection have survived total burn downs. Those RSC's wouldn't pass a U.L. test though. To be honest, I'm speculating that some of these gypsum-based containers may even fare better than a Sturdy in a fire.
The point is: we don't know the conditions, we don't know temperatures, we don't know duration, we don't know placement, we don't know anything. That's why we want to test things scientifically - so we can compare apples to apples. In the lab we can also create conditions far beyond what you'd experience in a typical home fire.
Businesses buy the minimum required by insurance, home owners buy whatever is cheapest and biggest.
Come on guys, let's use some common sense. I wasn't suggesting that Sturdy was using the *same* materials as NASA. I was merely saying that NASA ceramics > Sturdy ceramics > cheapo fireboard gypsum.
Would Sturdy still be in business if their safes didn't work?
I'm sure AMSEC are outstanding safes. I have zero experience. But I went with Sturdy. If I were in the market, I would consider AMSEC too and make my decision. But I'm merely saying that I am happy with my Sturdy safe.
I don't know what you were suggesting about ceramics, nor does it matter. Ceramics, like alloys, composites, fiber weaves and so on can have many different properties dependent on mixture, construction methodology, etc.
The tiles NASA uses on their space shuttles vary, there are many different types all made for different purposes and they do their job for a very short period of time after which many are replaced.
For some fun reading about the tiles, check this out:
http://depts.washington.edu/matseed...e/Space Shuttle Tiles/Space Shuttle Tiles.htm
I found it fascinating.
Just because both have ceramic in the name doesn't mean they're even similar. I don't know why you made the connection if you didn't mean anything by it.
Your saying: "I'm merely saying that I am happy with my Sturdy safe" is no different than someone saying they're happy with their gun locker. I mean it's cheap, easy to get in/out of, weights less, door is easier to swing and so on. In other words: it doesn't mean much. What does that even mean in the context of our discussion?
I don't believe the AMSEC BF has an actual UL fire rating, Amsec gives it a Mercury class III 90 minute rating whatever that is ...
That's a great point, but we know they use the same Mercury rating on their more robust safes which do go through the U.L. testing process. AMSEC also has the experience with the process and knows what works and what doesn't, so I would trust their engineering much more than a "trust me" from a company that doesn't conduct scientific testing.
According to the VP of Engineering at AMSEC, if the BF were to go through U.L. testing, he believes it would pass a 30-minute U.L. test. I have to take his word for it, but then again, I'll take the word of an "expert witness" over nothing.
Once again, the way I understand it, ceramics are a good insulator, but passive. Heat will get through slower, but once it does there's nothing preventing the temperatures from rising. Whereas concrete is "active." [My choice of words] As Brown safe explains it:
A true UL rated composite fire safe is made with two thin skins of sheet metal that house a water retaining medium between (typically a concrete and vermiculite mixture). The door jam is highly convoluted with a heat seal. As high heat hits the outside of the safe, the fire retardant medium expels the retained water as steam. This steam also saturates the safe's contents to artificially raise the flash point. Heat also causes expansion around the convoluted door jamb forming a solid seal.
---------------------
Listen guys, I don't mean to sound like I know it all nor do I mean to say that Sturdy sucks or anything of the sort. I'm not an expert in any of this (as I assume most of you aren't). All I'm saying is that Sturdy uses unconventional material and their product is untested in any certifiable way. I'm sure they make a fine product, but if someone is looking for fire protection they can't make the assumption that somehow Sturdy knows what the rest of the industry doesn't and more so they can't claim superiority.
