User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2019 1:53:20 PM EDT
[#1]
TSG;
Thanks for continuing to respond to inquiries and share your wealth of knowledge. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2019 1:57:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By born2die:
@TSG, Could you tell us more on BFS912E5LP that's on your web site but not in the 2018 catalog? Imported? Cast insulation? Steel plate in the door? How does it compare to the "real" BF series in terms of fire and burglary resistance? Been looking for a compact fire safe that doesn't suck, this seems to fit the bill... Thx :) The BFS912 is part of the BF Security Safe lineup, but a new smaller size. It does not have a UL Class 350 1-Hour listing, but does have an ETL rating of the equivalent specification. We added this to our line to fill in the small microwave size burglary-fire spot in that line. It's still sporting a genuine UL RSC burglary rating. It is a "cast" insulation safe with a 1/2" plate door, just like it's big brothers. We are importing this model to keep pricing down to compete with lesser safes in this product class. Our standards are -very- high, its' all our design, we own all of the tooling, and it's probably one of the best quality imported safes on the market. It's a great little safe. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/13/2019 6:36:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy:
Franky, none. I was not aware that consumer retail prices have presented this point of confusion. This may be a dealer-specific pricing thing. If I look at the "official" price book, the RF6528 (TL30) sells for $7500 -retail-. The CE6528 (TL15) sells for $5678 retail (no gun interior). The more comparably sized BFII6030 (textured finish) sells for $4920. The BFII-6636 is a much larger safe, and it's not really fair to compare it to a CE6528. Please note, the retail numbers are published prices that we provide, and our dealers are not allowed to -advertise- prices below the published MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) program pricing. They do not necessarily represent the prices that dealers and distributors may sell at. They can work on smaller margins and sell well below MAP prices if they choose, they just can't advertise below MAP prices. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/13/2019 7:39:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kermit68:
Not sure I agree with the BFII6636 being "much larger" than the CE6528. Based on the published info I have seen, they both come in at just over 21 internal cubic feet. The BFII6030 is around 15.5 internal cubic feet. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/14/2019 10:56:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy:
Well, the door size is the primary size measure when it comes to cost-size relationships. Nearly half of the material and labor cost of a safe is in the door. The CE6528 has a 12.6 sq ft area, the BFII6636 has a 16.5 sq ft area. The BFII6636 has 31% more door area than the CE6528. The BFII6030 has a 12.5 sq ft area, pretty close to the same as the CE6528. Look at the incremental price steps between sizes in a given line, you'll see what I mean. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy:
Originally Posted By Kermit68:
Not sure I agree with the BFII6636 being "much larger" than the CE6528. Based on the published info I have seen, they both come in at just over 21 internal cubic feet. The BFII6030 is around 15.5 internal cubic feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2019 4:22:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: P400]
[#6]
@TheSafeGuy could you give us another update on the ESL5?
I have one that is several years old and has been 100% trouble free. However, I am concerned about what I have read regarding failures of the older models, and am wondering if I should replace mine as a precaution despite the fact that it is functioning fine. What do you think? If I did replace it I would like to stick with the updated ESL5, as the illuminated keypad feature is important to me. If I were to do this, is there a way to tell the new versions apart from old stock? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/18/2019 5:18:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSafeGuy]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By P400:
@TheSafeGuy could you give us another update on the ESL5? I have one that is several years old and has been 100% trouble free. However, I am concerned about what I have read regarding failures of the older models, and am wondering if I should replace mine as a precaution despite the fact that it is functioning fine. What do you think? If I did replace it I would like to stick with the updated ESL5, as the illuminated keypad feature is important to me. If I were to do this, is there a way to tell the new versions apart from old stock? As soon as we discovered and understood the problem, we changed the processor to a trouble free part variant in early-2017. In a longer-term plan to mitigate any further potential hiccups with that CPU brand, we re-designed the circuitry to use a Microchip processor, and released that to production in late 2017. This required a full re-certification with the UL listing, which was completed successfully. That's the history to date. So, the locks made before and after the batch that had a -potential- defect never had any real issues. The locks that were made during that period had a low failure rate in reality. Moreover, the failure mode manifested itself in early operating life. We have tracked service performance very closely, as we always do, and we are very happy with the statistics. The ESL5 lock is proving to be a very reliable product. So, the risk of having a failure by now is probably very low. I can't say it's impossible, but the odds are very small. I would say this... but don't hunt me down if I'm wrong... If your lock has been in service for more than 1 year, your probably golden. If you experience anything fishy where it seems your code is not working -consistently-, change the lock as a preventative measure. That should go for any lock, any brand, mechanical or electronic. Hope this helps. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 10:23:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Possible]
[#8]
Hi Tony. Thank you for taking the time to educate us about RSCs and safes. I have a list of questions I've compiled reading through this thread.
I have an older BF safe and am planning to purchase a BFll gun safe (previously the BFHD, I believe). The older BF safe is similar to the current BF1716, but is about an inch smaller in exterior height and width, and two inches longer/deeper. The walls and door are a bit thinner. I'm wondering about an intumescent seal. Back on page 49, you mentioned, "The BF Safe already has a 'smoke seal' that acts as a low-range fire barrier. It is behind the Palusol seal already, so that the intumescent seal is exposed and allowed react before the soft seal fails. I pioneered this design concept with the original BF security safe line back in the mid-90's." I don't see that this safe ever had an intumescent seal, though it does have the smoke seal. Did the original design pass UL testing without an intumescent seal? Or did mine just miss getting one? In other words, should I install one, or should I leave well enough alone? 
Regarding UL "tools on the safe" test times. This may seem a silly question, but does that literally mean the time tools were in physical contact during the testing? Or, does it include the time for wielding/swinging the tools? |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 10:23:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Possible]
[#9]
As for the BFll, I have some ideas in mind to tailor it the way I want.
The smaller BF safes have interlocking anti-pry tabs on the door's edge. I don't see that the BF gun safes have those. I would think that those tabs would be even more beneficial on a gun safe due to the longer edge of a gun safe door frame being prone to pry attack. Can interlocking anti-pry tabs be added to a BF2 gun safe door during construction? Or, were they considered impractical for the very same reason (i.e. too small to be any good against prying at a long edge)? 
Also, how necessary is the "refrigerator door handle" on a BFll6030 door? Is the BFll door the same construction and weight as BF door? I'd like to have a single bolt throw handle installed instead of the spoked wheel, and would rather not have the pull handle if it's not really necessary. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you, again, for being such a great educator. I've learned a lot just from reading through this thread. (My photos show in preview, but not in the post. Can someone tell me how to make them show?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 11:02:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Yeehaa]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:(My photos show in preview, but not in the post. Can someone tell me how to make them show?) |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/20/2019 1:47:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
The older BF safe is similar to the current BF1716, but is about an inch smaller in exterior height and width, and two inches longer/deeper. The walls and door are a bit thinner. I'm wondering about an intumescent seal. Back on page 49, you mentioned, "The BF Safe already has a 'smoke seal' that acts as a low-range fire barrier. It is behind the Palusol seal already, so that the intumescent seal is exposed and allowed react before the soft seal fails. I pioneered this design concept with the original BF security safe line back in the mid-90's." I don't see that this safe ever had an intumescent seal, though it does have the smoke seal. Did the original design pass UL testing without an intumescent seal? Or did mine just miss getting one? In other words, should I install one, or should I leave well enough alone? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
The older BF safe is similar to the current BF1716, but is about an inch smaller in exterior height and width, and two inches longer/deeper. The walls and door are a bit thinner. I'm wondering about an intumescent seal. Back on page 49, you mentioned, "The BF Safe already has a 'smoke seal' that acts as a low-range fire barrier. It is behind the Palusol seal already, so that the intumescent seal is exposed and allowed react before the soft seal fails. I pioneered this design concept with the original BF security safe line back in the mid-90's." I don't see that this safe ever had an intumescent seal, though it does have the smoke seal. Did the original design pass UL testing without an intumescent seal? Or did mine just miss getting one? In other words, should I install one, or should I leave well enough alone? Regarding UL "tools on the safe" test times. This may seem a silly question, but does that literally mean the time tools were in physical contact during the testing? Or, does it include the time for wielding/swinging the tools?
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/20/2019 2:20:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
The smaller BF safes have interlocking anti-pry tabs on the door's edge. I don't see that the BF gun safes have those. I would think that those tabs would be even more beneficial on a gun safe due to the longer edge of a gun safe door frame being prone to pry attack. Can interlocking anti-pry tabs be added to a BF2 gun safe door during construction? Or, were they considered impractical for the very same reason (i.e. too small to be any good against prying at a long edge)? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
The smaller BF safes have interlocking anti-pry tabs on the door's edge. I don't see that the BF gun safes have those. I would think that those tabs would be even more beneficial on a gun safe due to the longer edge of a gun safe door frame being prone to pry attack. Can interlocking anti-pry tabs be added to a BF2 gun safe door during construction? Or, were they considered impractical for the very same reason (i.e. too small to be any good against prying at a long edge)? The difference in temperature is very significant, and the tabs keep the body from pulling away from the door as the thermal expansion of the body causes distortion. Safes are actually quite energetic and mobile during a fire test. Thermal expansion of the outer shell works against the relatively cool inner shell, causing a crowning or bowing to occur. It's like a bi-metallic strip. As the side walls bulge out, the jambs pull away from the door in the center. On a relatively tall Gunsafe, brought up to the higher temperatures (1700+), this deformation is big enough to disengage the door from the jambs around the center and breech. So, the tabs prevent seal breaches at higher temperatures. Also, how necessary is the "refrigerator door handle" on a BFll6030 door? The big industrial pull handle is all show, not necessary, but convenient. Is the BFll door the same construction and weight as BF door? I'd like to have a single bolt throw handle installed instead of the spoked wheel, and would rather not have the pull handle if it's not really necessary. What are your thoughts on this? You can have the safe equipped with a standard "L" Handle if you like, no issues. The big Spoke handles are all show too... So, no pull handle and an L handle is fine. That's basically the standard outfitting for commercial TL safes. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/21/2019 1:49:05 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOn a relatively tall Gunsafe, brought up to the higher temperatures (1700+), this deformation is big enough to disengage the door from the jambs around the center and breech. So, the tabs prevent seal breaches at higher temperatures. Do you know the actual model designation for my old, original BF safe? It's a bit different in dimensions than the BF1716. It is deeper and has thinner walls. Is there a story as to why the walls were made thicker eventually? As for the change in depth, I would think the current BFs fit better in closets with sliding doors. Was that the reason for the change in depth? Are the bottoms of the gun safes primed or painted? The bottom of my small, original BF was bare steel that had become rusty with time. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/21/2019 6:14:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
Thank you. So, does the BFll6030 have the tabs? I couldn't see them in the pictures I've seen. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
Thank you. So, does the BFll6030 have the tabs? I couldn't see them in the pictures I've seen. No, the ETL Gunsafe fire ratings are at the lower 1200ºF temperature, where extreme deflection is not an issue. Do you know the actual model designation for my old, original BF safe? It's a bit different in dimensions than the BF1716. It is deeper and has thinner walls. Is there a story as to why the walls were made thicker eventually? As for the change in depth, I would think the current BFs fit better in closets with sliding doors. Was that the reason for the change in depth?
Are the bottoms of the gun safes primed or painted? The bottom of my small, original BF was bare steel that had become rusty with time. The bottoms of the safes are primed. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/23/2019 3:12:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Possible]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy:
Not sure we are are the same page about the BF1716 size. I went back a checked, and that safe size has not changed since it was first released in 1996-97. If there was a change, I cn't see a record that reflect it. Here are the dimensions I have seen for the BF1716, as compared to the dimensions of mine (depths not including the handle). BF1716--22.25"H 21.75"W 21.75"D MINE-----21.00"H 20.75"W 23.75"D I assumed mine was a BF1716 since the dimensions were the closest, but the label just says "BF". Was there only one model originally? Here's a lousy frontal shot. 
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/30/2019 4:12:04 PM EDT
[#16]
I read in an old Locksmith Ledger publication that the concrete fillings dry with time to the point that steam release properties are no longer present in the older safes. It doesn't seem like calcination would break down with time, but I don't know. Does this hold any water (lol)?
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2019 1:57:45 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
I read in an old Locksmith Ledger publication that the concrete fillings dry with time to the point that steam release properties are no longer present in the older safes. It doesn't seem like calcination would break down with time, but I don't know. Does this hold any water (lol)? Not true at all, the writer got that wrong. The Calcination breakdown not happen at normal temperatures. Those chemical bonds that hold the H2O only break down at very high temperatures (fire exposure). There is a degree of "free water" in cemetactious mixes that -adjusts- to ambient humidity (normalizes), but it accounts for a very small part of the fire resistance and steam released. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 7:32:45 PM EDT
[#18]
@TheSafeGuy
Your inbox is full is there another way to contact you?? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/2/2019 12:46:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nightwolf357:
@TheSafeGuy Your inbox is full is there another way to contact you?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 8:53:28 AM EDT
[#20]
it is still telling me it is full.
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 1:15:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Possible]
[#21]
Originally Posted By TheSafeGuy: Not true at all, the writer got that wrong. The Calcination breakdown not happen at normal temperatures. Those chemical bonds that hold the H2O only break down at very high temperatures (fire exposure). There is a degree of "free water" in cemetactious mixes that -adjusts- to ambient humidity (normalizes), but it accounts for a very small part of the fire resistance and steam released. Looking through my photos, I found this. Interlocking tabs on a non-insulated, commercial cash safe. Just seems like a simple and possibly effective pry-resistant design feature. I have to wonder why most manufacturers don't utilize them. 
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 5:25:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possible:
Looking through my photos, I found this. Interlocking tabs on a non-insulated, commercial cash safe. Just seems like a simple and possibly effective pry-resistant design feature. I have to wonder why most manufacturers don't utilize them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 6:14:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nightwolf357]
[#23]
@TheSafeGuy
Log out and Log in please Also your inbox is still full |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 6:28:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nightwolf357:
@TheSafeGuy Log out and Log in please 
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 12:23:23 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy: Yes, those are anti-pry/wedge pins. I designed that into a few commercial b-rate safes that were getting hit by burglars with big pry bars back in the late 90's. You'll see those on all of the KFC, Starbucks and a several other fast-food chain customers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2019 12:35:27 AM EDT
[#26]
On the BF series safes, I inquired about changing the color of the interior carpeting and the place I asked tells me that it only comes in tan.
The other question is that on the NF series safes I noticed a "power strip" mounted in it. I was also told that those are not installed on the BF series either. Is it possible to have that added and the interior carpeting color changed? |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/6/2019 9:06:28 PM EDT
[#27]
It is not an AMSEC, but I believe others have asked about different brands in here as well. If not I can start a new post.
Does anyone know about Chubb Lock and Safe safes from circa 1973? Trying to get an idea if it would be worth purchasing, plus any equivalent ratings it may have. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/7/2019 10:59:28 AM EDT
[#28]
There is a "Brochure Library" out there for semi current and historical literature for Chubb. Combined with what you learn here, this additional level of detail from various manufacturers can help you make a purchase decision if looking for this level of security. After seeing what was involved for a 2700 lb safe delivery, I think a lot of this is just overkill and eye candy and would be a hard upgrade to justify from what I have in place for a residential application. ps, your inbox is full.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2019 12:33:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Hello,
Just wanted to thank you for all the insight over the years and it's been a great thread to follow. My parents just got a new place and am looking to give them my old NF6032? so they can have one to hold them over until they decide what they really want. It gives me a chance to pick up a new Amsec. 
I'm not quite dialed in on my next purchase, but I did have an approximate budget. I'm looking at $2-2500. I might have to go with another NF series. Should I be looking to up my budget to the BF series? Is there enough value in the price jump? Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2019 1:35:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nightwolf357:
On the BF series safes, I inquired about changing the color of the interior carpeting and the place I asked tells me that it only comes in tan. The other question is that on the NF series safes I noticed a "power strip" mounted in it. I was also told that those are not installed on the BF series either. Is it possible to have that added and the interior carpeting color changed? There is an Outlet inside the BF series safes. You can add a power splitter or power strip. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2019 9:28:27 PM EDT
[#31]
TSG,
I recently purchased a Amsec BFII6032. I opened up the panel on my safe to inspect the bolt work and noticed that on the non active side, the 1 1/2" locking bolts don't actually go through the frame but instead are held in place with much smaller bolts. The size of the locking bolts on the non active side seem more like a gimmick than they appear. During my research of purchasing a safe I've noticed other brands which the locking bolts go all the way through. In real world does this make a difference? Most TL rated bolt work I saw either had full locking bolts going through or a entire plate welded to the body instead of locking bolts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2019 1:44:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cfrea:
TSG, I recently purchased a Amsec BFII6032. I opened up the panel on my safe to inspect the bolt work and noticed that on the non active side, the 1 1/2" locking bolts don't actually go through the frame but instead are held in place with much smaller bolts. The size of the locking bolts on the non active side seem more like a gimmick than they appear. During my research of purchasing a safe I've noticed other brands which the locking bolts go all the way through. In real world does this make a difference? Most TL rated bolt work I saw either had full locking bolts going through or a entire plate welded to the body instead of locking bolts. The BFII Safe Line has TL-30 Boltwork. The exact same Boltwork is fitted our TL-30x6 line. Need I say more? We did that merely because it's easier to use stuff we already make, rather than some intermediate boltwork design/hardware that would result in a slew of new parts to manage. Economics of volume, one of the many reasons we are still here making safes in the USA. Now for the part that might sound like BS. Many "low-end" safe manufacturers design exotic locking systems with lots of big, long bolts, gears, 4-way active articulation, and many other attributes that are designed exclusively to impress a novice safe customer. Most of these bells and whistles do absolutely nothing to enhance security. In fact, many of these gadgets present vulnerabilities. We are a safe company, with over 75 years of experience in the real world, where we see burglaries attempted by skilled professional safe crackers every day. We have a full suite of current genuine high-security UL listings. It could be said we are the last of the big US safe manufactures left, where most all others are now importing or have gone out of business. I think it's fair to say we know what we are doing. I think it's also fair to say that, contrary to what competitors in this relatively low-security Gunsafe industry tell everyone, we offer a premium product in every class that far exceeds the "newbies" that have welded together sheet-metal boxes they call Gunsafes for the last 20 years, and don't have any more than an RSC listing under their belts, the lowest UL listing available. I would submit that they are not authorities on security, and the "gimmicks" are what the other guys are selling. More specific to your comments, moving deadbolts don't make a safe more secure. That is a weakness, rather than a strength. Rigid deadbolts do not provide any flex or backlash that can be exploited by wedge/sledge attack. Moreover, a "properly" designed safe with rigid deadbolts does not allow any additional advantage when hinges are removed. These are complex geometric interactions you can't see with the naked eye, they are inherently embedded in the geometry of the design. "Active" deadbolts can move to decrease body engagement, and they are generally connected to the live bolts on the locking side, so punching back any bolt defeats the whole locking system. Clearly, the fewer targets to punch, the fewer vulnerabilities you present to the bad guy. Long bolts are another over-sold gimmick. If a safe is designed with the proper materials and good body/door geometry, the long bolts are unnecessary. That's not to say long bolts are not good, but that's an easy and impressive way to contend with other inherent weaknesses in an overall poor safe design. I won't dive into the why, but a weak body design can be mitigated by a more rigid bolt under a hard sledge/wedge attack. You understand that I can't be too specific in my comments. I don't need to educate competitors, so I try to explain things without allowing myself to get all geeked-out on proprietary engineering and comparative design specifics. Suffice it to say that the BFII is as close to a TL rated safe as you can get without spending considerably more, and that safe is a better security container than any other "Gunsafe" on the market. Hope that helps... |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/10/2019 2:12:54 PM EDT
[#33]
TSG, Definitely does help and I appreciate the explanation. Makes me a feel better haha. I do agree, most of the stuff that's advertised is for 'show' and gimmicky. I just thought that the longer bolt design was a necessity but then again I'm no expert.
One last thing, I noticed that the bolts that were threaded into the 1 1/2" locking bolts on the non active side were not fully torqued down. I took my wrench and snugged up the 5 bolts slightly. Now that I'm reading your explanation, I'm wondering were these slightly loose (loose in the sense that I could still torque them down with a wrench a bit) by design or should they be tighter? If they are slightly on the looser side is that so they 'give' if there is forced entry? I'm hoping it was not a mistake to tighten them down a little more than they came from the factory. Is there a specific torque value these should be at so I can get them exact without causing any weaknesses and being at the designed specifications? Thank you! |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2019 2:15:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Poppakap]
[#34]
First, Thank you so much for posting so much info in this thread. Researching a safe leads to a lot of BS, so this is refreshing.
This is sort of following up on a post a few above---How big of a difference is there in burglary security between a BF and a BF II in the real world? Main differences appear to be better bolt work on the BF II and a better inner liner. How many burglaries that breach a BF would be stymied by a BF II? (Side note: How often is a BF beat in the real world to begin with?) It seems that if I couple people come equipped (probably with heavy power tools) to breach a BF, they'd probably bypass a BF II as well. It'd take a bit longer I suppose. I'm leaning toward a BF II but I'm not sure that there is a big difference in practice. Thanks again, |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2019 11:51:19 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Poppakap:
First, Thank you so much for posting so much info in this thread. Researching a safe leads to a lot of BS, so this is refreshing. This is sort of following up on a post a few above---How big of a difference is there in burglary security between a BF and a BF II in the real world? Main differences appear to be better bolt work on the BF II and a better inner liner. How many burglaries that breach a BF would be stymied by a BF II? (Side note: How often is a BF beat in the real world to begin with?) It seems that if I couple people come equipped (probably with heavy power tools) to breach a BF, they'd probably bypass a BF II as well. It'd take a bit longer I suppose. I'm leaning toward a BF II but I'm not sure that there is a big difference in practice. Thanks again, So, from a door panel attack perspective, they both have a 1/2" steel door, so the safes are roughly equivalent. From the perspective of a more sophisticated boltwork attack, the BFII had a considerable edge with everything being much better and stronger. As for the body attack, the thicker inner liner barrier should add more than the value you might mathematically assign based on net steel thickness, since that breech is hindered by the outer shell that has to be opened up first. From experience, I know that having a larger hole in the outer shell is necessary to make better use of tools on the liner, so the thicker steel inside is complemented by the need to make a larger opening on the outside to be defective. It's all time added. Is it twice as good... hard to say, with some tools/methods it probably is more than twice the protection. In any event, this is all supposition, as we don't have any exhaustive testing programs to measure relative barrier quality in this sense. There are simply too many variables in tools, skill level and methods. I know, I didn't really answer the question, but I think you can see why it's hard to quantify. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2019 6:22:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Hi TSG,
Do you mind responding to my last post with my question regarding the bolt work bolts. Thank you |
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2019 9:48:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Hi TSG - Thank you so much for sharing so much information and history on all safes not just AMSEC. After going through the forum I have a few questions on two of your smaller safes that I am looking at, BF1716 and UL1812X. Trying to decide between the two and understand the differences. The UL has a longer fire rating but does not seem to have the UL RSC. Is this just because it wasnt tested or it would not meet that level. I also noticed when I went to the dealer that the UL does not have an expanding door seal but seems to have more interlocking door and body. Appreciate your help in helping me to understand the differences in the design and build of these two safes. Your passion and dedication has really made me feel good about these products.
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2019 12:08:30 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy: The reality is that we have very few reports of burglary attempts on BF safes, and to date we have had zero reported attempts on BFII safes, since they are relatively new in the market. Franky, it's very hard to answer a question like this. Every attack on a given safe is different, both in tools used and skills/methods of the bad-guy. When we see the aftermath of a burglary, we know generally very little about how long, and what tools and techniques were applied. It's not like we have a CSI out there doing a full reconstruction of the incidents that we can catalog. So, from a door panel attack perspective, they both have a 1/2" steel door, so the safes are roughly equivalent. From the perspective of a more sophisticated boltwork attack, the BFII had a considerable edge with everything being much better and stronger. As for the body attack, the thicker inner liner barrier should add more than the value you might mathematically assign based on net steel thickness, since that breech is hindered by the outer shell that has to be opened up first. From experience, I know that having a larger hole in the outer shell is necessary to make better use of tools on the liner, so the thicker steel inside is complemented by the need to make a larger opening on the outside to be defective. It's all time added. Is it twice as good... hard to say, with some tools/methods it probably is more than twice the protection. In any event, this is all supposition, as we don't have any exhaustive testing programs to measure relative barrier quality in this sense. There are simply too many variables in tools, skill level and methods. I know, I didn't really answer the question, but I think you can see why it's hard to quantify. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2019 4:54:02 PM EDT
[#39]
TSG what are your opinions on the AMSEC LP Rotobolt Redundant Lock? Wanting to replace the ESL10 to this model. Is it a direct bolt on/compatibility fit on a BFII series safe?
Thanks! |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 11:32:13 AM EDT
[#40]
Boltwork: What has been upgraded/changed on the boltwork between BF RSC series and the BF RSCII series?
All I know is the BF RSCII has the TL-30 boltwork. But I have no idea what that means. I don't know how that is going to protect my valuable better (or maybe it doesn't, and there are other reasons for the change). There's lots of companies marketing mega cams, lots of gears, or simple linkage. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 3:31:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cfrea:
TSG what are your opinions on the AMSEC LP Rotobolt Redundant Lock? Wanting to replace the ESL10 to this model. Is it a direct bolt on/compatibility fit on a BFII series safe? Thanks! Honestly, we sell very few, so I don't really have a strong opinion and we have not conducted any surveys of long-term reliability yet. Yes, it is a direct replacement for any lock, and will work fine on the BFII. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 4:13:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSafeGuy]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jake367:
Boltwork: What has been upgraded/changed on the boltwork between BF RSC series and the BF RSCII series? All I know is the BF RSCII has the TL-30 boltwork. But I have no idea what that means. I don't know how that is going to protect my valuable better (or maybe it doesn't, and there are other reasons for the change). There's lots of companies marketing mega cams, lots of gears, or simple linkage. Well, this is a delicate issue. Anyone in any security industry will flinch when asked to get into the nitty-gritty. Let me try to talk in generalities. First, and foremost, is the general strength of a TL boltwork at this level. It's all much heavier, intended to resist the dreaded "single-point" attack at UL. One of the things that most safe-makers disregard is the idea that a knowledgeable safe-cracker will study the safe and seek points of weakness. For example, in "some" gear-driven boltwork system, they look VERY impressive. The locks are well protected, the links are heavy and tough looking... but... a smart guy could see that if you drilled a hole down the shaft axis of the primary gear that engaged the lock, the main gear would fall off and you would defeat the entire locking system. No hardplates, no ball bearings, nothing to stop the simple technique that only requires simple tools. That is the evil genius of the UL test team that comes from decades of experience cracking safes. They are masters at finding simple means to defeat complex and seemingly robust systems. This is one reason why TL boltwork tends to employ simple, heavy mechanics. The destructive power of a 10-lb sledge hammer on a 1/2 inch punch is devastating. I have seen UL punch the entire lock mounting platform off the back of a door, just pounding on it with this approach. All they needed was a 1/2" hand drill, a punch and a sledge hammer. Welds must be of the best quality with deep penetration and lots of them. Now, picture such a powerful technique applied to any part of a boltwork system. You can easily fold and collapse linkages and other components. It's fast and easy if there are vulnerabilities present. Those safes with exotic gears and criss-crossing bars all become useless when the heart of the system is defeated with a few good hammer blows. A TL rating is good assurance that those vulnerabilities are not present. Hardplates are another key difference. The RSC safes only have to resist a hand drill for 5 minutes. The TL safes have to resist drilling with huge high-power-high-speed drills in magnetic presses or professional-grade drill rigs that are designed to impose massive forces on a quality carbide drill point. In drilling hardplates, speed+power+force is the equation for success. In our TL15/30/30x6 line, we use a Patented "Active" Hardplate, an exclusive innovation in the industry. Not only is it hard to drill, but the act of drilling for key attack points automatically triggers/sets multiple secondary "Relocking" devices. The secondary Relockers are very difficult to defeat, and they are also protected behind drill resistant plates. Massive Brain Damage. One of the most well-renowned safe crackers in the industry calls my Active Hardplate the "Diabolical" Hardplate, and says to avoid it at all cost. There are more "features" in the TL Boltwork that come from many years of experience making high security safes for commercial consumers that do get attacked by experienced, educated and ruthless safe-crackers. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 8:18:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSafeGuy:
Hardplates are another key difference. The RSC safes only have to resist a hand drill for 5 minutes. The TL safes have to resist drilling with huge high-power-high-speed drills in magnetic presses or professional-grade drill rigs that are designed to impose massive forces on a dill point. In drilling hardplates, speed+power+force is the equation for success. In our TL15/30/30x6 line, we use a Patented "Active" Hardplate, an exclusive innovation in the industry. Not only is it hard to drill, but the act of drilling for key attack points automatically triggers/sets multiple secondary "Relocking" devices. The secondary Relockers are very difficult to defeat, and they are also protected behind drill resistant plates. Massive Brain Damage. One of the most well-renowned safe crackers in the industry calls my Active Hardplate the "Diabolical" Hardplate, and says to avoid it at all cost. There are more "features" in the TL Boltwork that come from many years of experience making high security safes for commercial consumers that do get attacked by experienced, educated and ruthless safe-crackers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2019 3:33:03 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cfrea:
What you mention here, is this included in the BFII series or only once you get a TL rated safe? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2019 7:37:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Gotcha makes me glad I got the BFII :)
When I look at the bolt mechanism, I just see one relocker which is on the lock body. Are the rest of the relockers inside the ESL lockbody itself or somewhere else behind that thick plate? I never really understood where the other relockers are. I know this model doesn't have glass relockers so what are the other relockers essentially? Also when looking at the bolt work, it looks like any force applied to the handle when the safe is in it's locked state transfers directly to the bolt on the lock body. What mitigates a potential attacker from simply forcing the handle and breaking the bolt holding the entire boltwork in the locked position? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 11:49:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSafeGuy]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cfrea:
Gotcha makes me glad I got the BFII :) When I look at the bolt mechanism, I just see one relocker which is on the lock body. Are the rest of the relockers inside the ESL lockbody itself or somewhere else behind that thick plate? I never really understood where the other relockers are. I know this model doesn't have glass relockers so what are the other relockers essentially? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cfrea:
Gotcha makes me glad I got the BFII :) When I look at the bolt mechanism, I just see one relocker which is on the lock body. Are the rest of the relockers inside the ESL lockbody itself or somewhere else behind that thick plate? I never really understood where the other relockers are. I know this model doesn't have glass relockers so what are the other relockers essentially? Also when looking at the bolt work, it looks like any force applied to the handle when the safe is in it's locked state transfers directly to the bolt on the lock body. What mitigates a potential attacker from simply forcing the handle and breaking the bolt holding the entire boltwork in the locked position? 
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2019 6:07:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Apparently I posted this in the wrong discussion so I am reposting it here
We have a problem. We have an Amsec MM2820 two door drop safe. It came with ESL10 locks and keypads. One of the keypads failed so in the meantime we installed an ESL5 lock and keypad that we had on hand a spare. It was relatively unused and tested before hand. It seemed to function correctly and every time. We installed it, put the door back on and shut it. It has never worked again. The keypad lights up for a half second when plugged in, but does not respond at all afterward. We bought a new matching keypad (5v series) and that did not solve the issue. Fresh batteries in all keypads. We borrowed a Lockmasters Jumpbox with no cure. It seems as if the microprocessor in the lock went stupid. I found if you hold the C key while plugging in the power the keypad will beep and flash about every second endlessly. Then pushing any key will cause it to beep followed by three shorter beeps, but does not trigger the lock. My question is if there is trick to resetting the processor so that I can get it to respond to the keypad and open the door. My alternatives are to drill it which I am not anxious to do if I can get a response from the keypad. This ESL5 assembly was made in 2015. Thank you so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2019 6:55:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSafeGuy]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gbrsteve:
... It was relatively unused and tested before hand. It seemed to function correctly and every time. We installed it, put the door back on and shut it. It has never worked again. The keypad lights up for a half second when plugged in, but does not respond at all afterward. We bought a new matching keypad (5v series) and that did not solve the issue. Fresh batteries in all keypads. We borrowed a Lockmasters Jumpbox with no cure. It seems as if the microprocessor in the lock went stupid. I found if you hold the C key while plugging in the power the keypad will beep and flash about every second endlessly. Then pushing any key will cause it to beep followed by three shorter beeps, but does not trigger the lock. My question is if there is trick to resetting the processor so that I can get it to respond to the keypad and open the door. My alternatives are to drill it which I am not anxious to do if I can get a response from the keypad. This ESL5 assembly was made in 2015. Thank you so much. Did the Lock open after you mounted the door? (your message doesn't say if you opened the lock several times before locking the safe door) I'm thinking a pinched cable right now. Here is something to try.... If all or part of that keypad/phone cable coming out from under the lock is pinched under the lock, it may be doing some crazy wire crossed input that makes the lock respond nutty. If that's the problem, then you may get lucky by sliding a 3/8" round bar into the spindle hole along-side the cable on the bolt-end side of the lock (so the cable is NOT under the punch end). Then, carefully start punching the lock away from the mounting platform, a tiny bit at a time to relieve the pinch stress that's shorting wires. Try the Keypad again after every few hits. A little deformation of the Lock Case should not render the lock inoperable if you take it slow and easy. I'm not coming up with any other things you haven't already done, except maybe disconnect power and let it sit for 24 hours. If it has a cracked capacitor problem, one of the very-rare failure modes, the caps don't discharge and it holds the inputs in a locked-down state. Long periods without power allow the cap to discharge, then you get one shot at opening it up. The symptoms you describe don't indicate that has happened, but it's worth a try. If you have a current meter, it would be helpful to know how much current it is pulling. Normal should be less than 10 micro-amps in sleep mode, and less than 70 milli-amps when it's awake. High current and bizarre behavior could indicate metallic contamination inside the lock shorting something. You said it was a used lock sitting around, so that's always a suspect issue. Frankly, I would recommend never installing a lock of unknown origin and history... Good luck! |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2019 7:25:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Yes. The door was tested before installing. The final test being we had to unlock it to shut it. Because the this is not the original lock and it is about 3/8" thinner than the ESL10 it required the lock to be mounted with some stand off bushings underneath. Basically it raised the lock about 3/8" and put everything in the same place as the ESL10. Because of that the wire has a fair amount of room under it. We have even replaced the RJ11 end in case there was a broken wire near the keypad end.
If there is no other trick to wake up this lock that is for public consumption then I guess I will have to drill, punch etc. Thank you for taking the time to answer. We love the safe. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2019 10:25:18 AM EDT
[#50]
My ESL10 died after 5 years. It started to intermittently open my safe. Yes, I did try fresh batteries.
I did take the batteries out for a while and then reattach the batteries. It would then work one or two times and then start to not work again. I took this as a sign that the ESL10 lock was failing and I left the door to my safe open.. a1abdj recommended a high quality S&G Mechanical lock to replace it with. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
