steven58
Member
I took the pegboard cover off of the inside of my ZA-III door to change the combination. I was very impressed with what I found!
Turns out that the 10 3/4" thick steel bolts that secure the door are actually 5 solid rods and go across the entire inside of the door. They are connected by a welded steel 1/4" X 1 1/4" bar to a 1/4" thick steel cam mechanism and exterior handle mechanism that interfaces with bolt for the dial lock.
The lock is attached to a 1/4" thick rectangular plate welded to the inside of the door. In the pictures the top of the cam (shown in the locked position) and its cutout seem rough cut. However, they are actually precisely machined and polished. The illusion is caused by the lithium grease that coats that area.
When closed the ZA-III has about 2" of each bolt end in full contact with the door frame perimeter which has an extra layer of flat steel plate all around the inside of it. While I'm no expert, to me all of it looks very strong and it seems that it would be extremely difficult to pry this door open.
The kenCraft, by comparison, has an L shaped 1/4" rod that engages at 2 corners in its perimeter at the top and bottom of the front of the door with about 1/2" of engagement surface. There is also an 1/8" thick stamped steel lobe that rotates at the rear of the key lock that has another 1/2" of engagement surface.
My guess is I could get into the KenCraft in about 5 minutes using a large flat screwdriver or small pry bar. Or, 1 minute with a bic pen as it has one of the cylindrical key locks similar to an old Kryptonite bike lock.
I measured the thickness of the steel at door frame perimeter and compared it and the locking mechanism to my old KenCraft that is now used for ammo storage. I refer you to the pictures below for the results.
The comparison is obviously lopsided in both physical attributes and price and I'm posting this merely for informational purposes not to argue which RSC is better than another.
For me, this is a very good example of "you get what you pay for".
Turns out that the 10 3/4" thick steel bolts that secure the door are actually 5 solid rods and go across the entire inside of the door. They are connected by a welded steel 1/4" X 1 1/4" bar to a 1/4" thick steel cam mechanism and exterior handle mechanism that interfaces with bolt for the dial lock.
The lock is attached to a 1/4" thick rectangular plate welded to the inside of the door. In the pictures the top of the cam (shown in the locked position) and its cutout seem rough cut. However, they are actually precisely machined and polished. The illusion is caused by the lithium grease that coats that area.
When closed the ZA-III has about 2" of each bolt end in full contact with the door frame perimeter which has an extra layer of flat steel plate all around the inside of it. While I'm no expert, to me all of it looks very strong and it seems that it would be extremely difficult to pry this door open.
The kenCraft, by comparison, has an L shaped 1/4" rod that engages at 2 corners in its perimeter at the top and bottom of the front of the door with about 1/2" of engagement surface. There is also an 1/8" thick stamped steel lobe that rotates at the rear of the key lock that has another 1/2" of engagement surface.
My guess is I could get into the KenCraft in about 5 minutes using a large flat screwdriver or small pry bar. Or, 1 minute with a bic pen as it has one of the cylindrical key locks similar to an old Kryptonite bike lock.
I measured the thickness of the steel at door frame perimeter and compared it and the locking mechanism to my old KenCraft that is now used for ammo storage. I refer you to the pictures below for the results.
The comparison is obviously lopsided in both physical attributes and price and I'm posting this merely for informational purposes not to argue which RSC is better than another.
For me, this is a very good example of "you get what you pay for".
Attachments
Last edited:
