I assume on a composite fill TL rated safe that the composite fill cures similar to concrete and achieves a certain strength after X number of days.

I have seen the old U.L. TL-30 test video were the U.L. guys zip the outer shell off the safe in a matter of maybe 30 seconds, they then proceed to beat on the safe with sledge hammers/picks/chisels repeatedly with no luck. I recognize we are talking serious PSI fill, is it just simple physics, the sledge blows can't generate enough force against the high PSI?  I further assume there is all kinds of secret fill like aluminum fibers or whatever holding the fill together behind the scenes.

On the X6 safes that have alloy plates in the side, I assume they are fixed during the pour process similar to using rebar with ties during a concrete pour. The term interlocking is tossed around, I assume this is so it is difficult to peel the plates from the composite?

I assume the alloy selected is some form of a compromise based on anticipated type of attack, costs, torch vs. drill.  I.E., Manganese is superior for this but not that, etc, etc based upon alloy.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

ETA APRIL 2016 - Before this thread became the standard Amsec thread, there were several active threads and I have dug through the archives to add them to this thread.

Yet Another AMSEC Safeguy Question

AMSEC Question

AMSEC Amvault burned in fire

AMSEC Questions for Thesafeguy 06-05-13

AMSEC (and new UL)

Can the AMSEC ESL10 lock be muted

Early thread discussing various AMSEC TL's



2014 thread on S&G Locks added 12/29/19

As requested fire testing added to OP.

Attached File

Take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztj4lsEdr74


Its not an AMSEC, but it claims to be a mfg doing an in house test of an X6.
It shows how their  construction holds its own against a demo hammer.  I would assume that if the plates were manganese they would also require serious time to deal with after the aggregate was hammered out.

 

Sorry I missed this thread until now. I have to browse the board more often.

Concrete is concrete... and we normally see around 90-95% of the ultimate compression strength in 28 days, which is the standard measure point. Concrete actually continues to cure indefinitely.

The body attack is brutal, no doubt. When they peel the skin, unless there are materials that are connected to the skin on the inside acting as an anchor, the skin is gone in seconds. The idea is to make skin remove a painful delay. A skin that's not anchored is near useless.The skin thickness does not help much unless you get real thick. That's why you see these safes with thinner outer skins. Thicker gauge steel is wasted for it's barrier contribution, unless it's real thick (3/8" or more).

Compression Strength, the measure of concrete quality, is a misleading property when it's used in a safe body. We care more about hardness, ductility and impact resistance. So, the mixes are tuned to maximize those traits. Fibers, metal or synthetic, help us here.

UL rarely uses the Sledge Hammer unless there is a Chisel in play. The picks are so effective they don't bother with regular sledges on concrete. They sharpen them like needles, and only use them for a few blows before sharpening them again.

Torch resistance is a whole different game. The torch testing at UL is almost a joke, it's so far beyond any real attack levels. The two guys are in full fire suits, and one is using a big-ass Bosch electric chisel. If you have any steel in the structure, they exploit that by using it as a fluxing accellerant to get things much hotter and break down the composite.

Thank you, always new stuff to learn!

I was browsing the threads tonight, and I happened on the tack'ed thread "An Informative Thread: Most frequently asked gun safe questions and answers." I see a lot of misinformation in that thread. I wanted to set the record straight for those of you interested in truly understanding these products. I'll keep the explanations brief here, and we can expand if there are any questions.

Let's start with fire protection.... but first lets set the stage so there is clarity. I will bring you truth.

For those that have not figured it out yet, I am the VP of Engineering for AMSEC. I have been engineering AMSEC product for over 25 years. I have tested fire and burglary safes at Underwriters Labs, Omega Point, ETL and other labs all over the country. I am a charter member of the Underwriters Laboratories UL72 Standards Technical Panel (STP), consulting on fire standards development at UL. I am also a charter member of the UL687, UL768 and UL2058 STPs for Safes, Mechanical Locks and Electronic Locks. I am also a member of the ASTM F15 committee on security and child safety containers. I was the lead industry adviser in California for the publication of the CalDOJ safety Standards, and in fact I wrote the draft standard (before the liberal  bureaucrats mutilated that work). So, I put forth my credentials such that you will not doubt the facts I will provide.

Okay, now we need to break down the walls of myth and deception. First, let's get this on the table... most of the players that manufacture products for weapons storage do only that, and similar small light duty unlisted products. They don't have genuine UL Fire Listings. They have never even seen a UL Fire Safe test. This lack of experience has brought a lot of bad, misleading and deceptive information, much of it in print.

The Gunsafe business is one that grew from small sheet metal shops looking for a new market. This industry has gone thru four major shake-ups that drove the industry into rapid expansion. First, the Gun Control Legislation in 1994, then the Y2K scare in 1999, the WTC terrorist attack on 9/11/2001, and finally the one we are currently rolling out of from the liberal gun-ban push taking advantage of the Sandy Hook tragedy. During each of these industry changing events, demand for safes went ballistic, and provided opportunity for anyone that could weld steel and paint to jump into the market.

With all these expansions, reversals came and many small players dropped out when demand slowed again. But, also from that growth, some survived. Many of these young companies make fine looking products, and some have provided strong consumer appeal. But, from this fray came a lot of people with no experience in security and fire protection. The marketing went out of control, and higher and higher claims for fire resistance grew out of dishonesty and ignorance. I'd like to lift the veil for you...

First, the most important thing you must understand is that a GOOD firesafe, almost ALL good fire safes, work on the premise that the insulation holds water. The water is stored as free water moisture and chemically bonded water in the crystalline structure of Hygroscopic materials like Gypsum Board (drywall) and cementitious poured mixes based on cement (the key ingredient in concrete). When exposed to high temperatures, the water is released as steam. The steam saturates the inner atmosphere of the safe as it expands. The steam is at the boiling point of water (212ºF), and the environment is regulated at that temperature as long as there is enough venting to release any build-up of pressure, and there is ample water to keep steam generation going. In reality, measured temperatures inside a safe rise above 212º, but that is due to other factors where heat energy is entering the safe by modes other than Convection (i.e., Conduction and Radiation).

The expanding water vapor vents out thru any breeches in door seals, anchor holes, electrical ports and structural breeches. The escaping steam prevents the super-heated gasses outside from entering the safe. The free water is released early, then the process of decay of the insulation called Calcination frees significantly more steam volume, until the insulation has decayed to it's constituent dry ingredients. The free water in the media is not really "free", it's absorbed to the point of balance with atmospheric humidity in the environment. Insulations commonly use water retaining materials like Diatomaceous Earth, Perlite and Vermiculite to help hold free water moisture.

So... the internal temperature is regulated by STEAM. That means the inside of the safe is drenched with water. During a fire test, it's not uncommon to see water boiling out of the bottom edge of the door vigorously. Yes, that's not very good for our precious guns. But, that is how it works. The "other" types of fire-resistant safes that work are "data" safes, where additional measures are taken to maintain the internal at 125º or 150º for computer media storage. These safes use other technologies I can explain later, but they are typically based on the same steam generating outer safe bodies.

So, yes, get those guns out as soon as you can after a fire. Keep your guns well oiled. Use Gun Socks to help keep soot and other deposits from getting on your goodies. Keep valuables in air-tight containers like Tupperware and microwave safe cooking containers. Anything that can resist temperatures under 350º should make a big difference.

Thank you for taking time to post and sharing your expertise. ARFCOM is fortunate to have an expert on the board.

Thanks BG, happy to contribute.

I have often considered how we might produce a convenient air-tight gun bag, or a range of bags for various weapon size/types. Something durable enough to take daily handling, but not terribly complex and expensive. Probably a transparent poly-film with a decent ZipLoc seal. Does that sound interesting to anyone?

I think there is a market, in fact, your comments on microwave type containers and their role in a safe fire situation really woke me up.

Im also enjoying have you here, as I am nearing purchase time on a "gun storage solution" myself. Such a product does in fact exist here, and Bianchi made a similar product but Im not sure if they still do.

Those ZCORR bags are not a bad option, but DAMN, they are proud of them, huh? Those use a VCI (Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor) protection scheme. Not a bad idea, except it's just very expensive.The bags are about what I pictured, but seems to me that anything over $10 each and they go nowhere fast.

VCI is actually good stuff. We used it for years under the boltwork covers of some firesafe models to prevent lock corrosion when one lock maker (LaGard) had a corrosion issue with combo locks. A small VCI pad with adhesive took care of the problem. You can do this in your safe now, and it's not terribly expensive.

You can use these in your safe, and they will help to prevent corrosion. They sell large volume emitters like these Cortec It won't help in a fire, but it's a good every-day moisture protection scheme.

Safeguy,  you explained how important the moisture that is released from the fire material to increase pressures and keep outside heated gases from entering.  Where does this moisture come from for manufactures that use a fiberglass like material, is moisture held in this type of material?  

Thats the elephant in the room at this point. Seems those manufacturers were doing engineering calcs when they should have been doing science experiments.

Shhhhhh... you don't want to wake the angry mob that is sure to run out and attack you... with no scientific facts or evidence to support their stance...

The Elephant in the room indeed.

No, fiber insulation holds little or no water. Water in an insulator reduces the insulation value.

Honestly, we have never tested a passive "non-Hygroscopic" insulated product in fire exposure conditions. It has always seemed pointless. I have my opinions, and I can tell you what I think based on many many years of experience and a strong background in Thermodynamics. My honest opinion is that unless you are providing several inches of insulation you don't have much of a firesafe.

Insulation merely slows the transfer of heat. More insulation just slows heat transfer a little more. It can't stop it, and it can't regulate any temperature limits. It's a passive barrier. Without any active energy absorption or other cooling mechanism, the safe will follow a straight line rise to equilibrium with the outside ambient temperature. When that number is at typical home fire levels, typically accepted to be 1200ºF, there is a huge delta-T (dT). Conductive Heat Transfer is a simple linear relationship of dT and the the Thermal Conductivity Coefficient (k, the inverse of R-Value, or 1/R) of the aggregate barrier materials. The one-dimensional energy transfer is represented simply by the formula:

q = k * dT/dX

where X is distance (wall thickness). Now, realize that Thermal Conductivity Coefficient (k) of most common materials range from 0.1 to 1.0 (per inch, smaller is better), with only a few materials with k factors below 0.1, and they have very low melting points, or they are exotic Aerospace materials that cost far too much for practical use. See a table of R-values HERE. Remember, k = 1/R. R Values range from 1 to 10. Fiber Insulation types run in the lower half of this range (R = 3.0-4.5), not impressive at all.

What does this all mean? Well, it should be obvious if I am making myself clear... "Dry" insulation types don't differ much, not like one is hundreds of times better than another. The range is very small, where the best high temperature tolerant materials are in the 5.0 range, and the worst are around 1.0. We can rule out the better insulators that have R-Values over 6, because they all have very low melting points or cost a mint full of gold.

In real world terms, I'd guess that a safe insulated with a 2-inch wall of Rock Wool or Fiberglass Pad exposed to 1200ºF will probably break the 350ºF internal limit in less than 20 minutes. That's an estimate, not from empirical data. That estimate is probably quite generous. The heat transfer discussed here is only regarding energy Conduction. The other two modes of heat transfer are in play, that being Convection and Radiation. They have a significant impact on this equation.

You make your own conclusions from the real Engineering conditions as I have explained...

What about safes that are stored in a very dry low humidity environment will it have less moisture trapped and less moisture will be released?

Since the professor is in....

From what I have read, the energy transfer is consumed to some extent by the phase change of moisture to steam. Is there a certain amount of BTUs a piece of sheetrock can "mitigate" on a one time basis?

It seems that following your logic a dry insulated safe can delay a certain amount of heat before it equalizes. This heat won't dissapate until this happens.

The Sheetrock/cement insulation actually consume heat through the vapor change.

It seems you could come up with an equivalent amount of BTUs that a given safe can mitigate before it gets to 350, and the dry insulation would be lower EVEN though the R Value is much higher.

Sheetrock is an excellent Hygroscopic. It contains an amazing volume of water. Keep in mind, there are two phase changes in play when using a hygroscopic barrier. One is the free water, absorbing energy and boiling off. The other is the Calcination of the insulation, also releasing water vapor converting to steam from he crystalline molecular structure. The key problem with drywall (aka Sheetrock or gypsum board) is the joints, where the temperatures are generally much higher at corners and edges. The Calcination is a decomposition, or decay of the materials back to the constituent dry materials you started with in the manufacturing process (which uses scads of water to cause the exothermic bonding reaction).



This is a misunderstood thermodynamic myth. Heat doesn't dissipate in an enclosed system like this. I have heard this argument too many times. There is no path for "dissipation". Where can the energy go? The entire environment is hot, so there is no place to remove energy. Think of heat transfer in these conditions more like filling a glass of water from a faucet. The flow of energy is the stream of water. The safe is the glass. Once you start to run the water flow into the glass, the water level begins to rise (temperature). The energy (water) flow is constant. The glass is always filling up, there is no drain (no where to expel or remove energy).

That's not a perfect analogy, but close. The heat transfer RATE slows as the delta-T gets smaller, so in the analogy the flow rate of the water slows as the glass fills to make the more analogy accurate.

I get what you are thinking, that there is some time interval before the inner wall temperature begins to rise. However, that "delay" is only moments, maybe a couple minutes before the constant energy flow rate is established. The thing people overlook in that thinking is that when the inside is the coolest, the rate of energy transfer (q) is the greatest (because delta T is the greatest). Look back at the formula. It didn't change.



Yes, and more as explained above.



I'm not sure I can draw a question from this that I can answer. You are making statements as though they are facts, but they are not. You can't practically compare an active protection scheme to a passive delay system without defining what failure means. BTUs are a nebulous measure that does not relate to temperature rise without accounting for several other factors like insulation thickness, air volume, humidity, atmospheric pressure and the thermal storage capacity of the internal structure and materials, to name a few. Also, the term mitigate  means to make the measure insignificant. Constant temperature rise is not insignificant by any means of measure.

If you are simply saying there is a time delay before the dry insulation safe hits 350, then sure, that's right. But, you can't compare that to a temperature response that initially rises at a similar rate, but then stabilizes at something a bit over 212ºF for some significant period before resuming the temperature rise to failure. So, the number of BTUs absorbed into the two safe types is probably near equivalent until the active system starts to react. Then the BTU influx in the active safe system is diverted and consumed by the phase change reactions. Meanwhile, the passive unit continues to rise at a steady and rapid pace. You do realize that we are talking about a few minutes, right? The rate-of-rise, is probably around 20-30 degrees per minute in these conditions.

Please understand, I know where you are coming from. These are difficult concepts to realize, particularly when some safe makers deceive consumers by selling meaningless BTU numbers and stating material specifications of 2200ºF and implying the safe will endure the same. It's even more difficult to swallow if you have been a buyer of such a product. Now, don't get hurt by that, that's not to say the product is useless. It only means it is less effective. Where exposure conditions are moderate and duration is short, dry insulation safes can perform just fine. We used to sell a Rock-Wool lined product too back when the first gunsafes started to mature into fire resistant containers in the early 90's.

I hope this helps. I know it points the finger of doubt at a few well known producers. But that's just the way it is. Sometimes the facts don't align with what we thought to be true.

So is the premise of using DryLight over "drywall" in the BF series of safes (I have a 2008 BF6030) more to do with the though that since it is a poured in material there aren't seams or corners to allow a greater amount of heat transfer?

ETA: Also, is it possible to find out what the actual inner and outer wall thicknesses were for the 2008 model BF6030?  I know they have changed over time.

Precisely. I mentioned before that the joints are subject to more energy influx. That process increases the Calcination rates, such that the edges of the gypsum board panels break down first. When that happens, the material shrinks and crumbles. Once you have a breech in any of those joints, you're done. It doesn't matter how you stagger and stack the boards, edges are exposed. With  poured mix, not only do you have a joint-less barrier, but the fill is "engineered" to minimize Calcination shrink and provide a much improved decay pattern where the material integrity is better for a longer period. Gypsum Board is not very strong once the paper is gone. As you can imagine, the paper doesn't last long, so the materials are left to hold together based on the base structural binder. In Gyp-board, it's just the gypsum powder. In the poured fill materials, the binder is cement (concrete), a much stronger material as you can imagine. Another advantage is that the poured material "wicks" (conducts) away heat from the edges, because it is a homogeneous mass. The Gyp-board joints don't touch intimately, so the energy wicking is not nearly as effective.



Sure. We hold no secrets about that... The outer skin was 11 gauge (0.120 nominal), and in 2010 we changed it to 12 gauge (0.105 nominal). The inner shell has always been 16 gauge (0.060 nominal). There is some fire-related magic here, but I am going to keep that off the board. The floor started as 11 gauge, and was changed to 4 gauge (0.224 nominal, not sure what year without research). In 2011 we added an insulated pan floor. It wasn't necessary from a fire resistance standpoint, but dealer pressure forced the issue.

EDIT. In early-2013 the outer skin of the BF was increased back to 11 gauge steel.

To sum up some of what Safeguy is saying with a photo, this is what many gypsum lined gun safes look like after a fire:








Perhaps Safeguy knows the answer to this one as well.  It was once asked why gun safes do not have UL fire ratings.  I know of at least one older gun safe that did have a UL fire rating, and assumed that the reason none of the newer offerings have one is due to the fact that they wouldn't pass the test.  It was said that somebody at UL said during a telephone conversation that they would not offer a UL fire rating to any safe designed to hold guns, for safety purposes.  An attorney on one of our security forums took a quick look at his copy of the standards and said he didn't see anything that would prevent a gun safe from being certified by UL.

Safeguy, can you shed any light on this?

Sure. First, that safe in the picture saw hell and the devil himself. Now, believe it or not, that's what ANY gyp-board Gunsafe would look like if subjected to a real Class 350 test at UL. That safe is no better or worse than another. It appears to be a 2-layer import. In fact, that could be an AMSEC safe. Some telltale clues indicate it might be such. You're right, these gunsafes would be destroyed like the one in that picture in a UL Class 350-1/2 hour fire test. (yes, I said one-half-hour)

Why don't gunsafes have UL Fire Ratings?

First, because you could never afford to buy one. That's a real answer. Gunsafes began a feeble entry to the market with small little steel boxes in the early 90's. When these players are out there claiming 2 hours of fire resistance for a gypsum lined safe, they are... well, full  of smelly excrement. If you look at a real fire safe with a UL rating, you will notice quite a few stark differences. One, the steel is very thin. Another, the jamb sections have some odd shapes. Third, walls are pretty darn thick. And more important, they are very heavy. Lots of dense water retaining materials in those things. More of an issue, big safes are much harder to pass testing. Everything gets tougher as safes get bigger. Notice the picture in the last post... do you see how the walls are bulging either side of the door? that is what we call the bi-metallic effect. The hot outer skin of the safe expands a lot. the inner face is kept relatively cool. The result is that the walls bulge, and not just a little bit. On a 60-inch tall safe, those walls will bulge 2-3 inches on each side. Ever ask yourself what happens when the door didn't get wider to match? ...that's right, the door seals breech big-time. It's an instant fail. It doesn't matter how much your seals expand, it's not enough. So, now go back and look at that real firesafe. You notice that the door and body jambs have an inter-locking profile? That inter-lock is there to resist the bulge and maintain a good door seal. So, now imagine how we might incorporate that feature into these crude steel boxes? Duh, too complicated... not happening.

Second, the avenue of sales doesn't play. The retailers that market Gunsafes are generally selling things you can carry out of the store. To sell an item that requires professional installation is just too much of a hassle. We actually sold safe moving equipment for several years at a deep discount to help dealers step up. Didn't work. When the guy that places the order decides on the unit mix he sells, he is thinking about the back-breaking work it requires to get that customer the product.  If he can't strap it to a furniture dolly, it won't sell, because he won't buy it and show it. Most of these numb-skulls don't get that they can charge for services like that. There are very few sporting goods dealers that will handle large safes. They have it figured out, and profit from the installations. The customers will buy big safes if they are there, but the dealers are the barrier.

Third, shipping cost. If I am a national seller, and there is an ankle-biter safe welding shop nearby, they automatically have a $200-$300 advantage. Again, weight is the key element. A heavy safe costs more to deliver. With so many players, the sale goes to the nearest manufacturer if shipping costs are too high. So, the industry as a whole targets lighter products to keep volume up and nation-wide distribution.

Forth, lack of knowledge and the lack of motivation to spend big on testing sequences that bring you to a working, yet economical design. ONE test for a fire listing at UL now costs over $30,000. To do a proper job of designing the right product, with a balance of light weight and adequate fire resistance is a process of iteration. If you have no base of experience, you could go back and retest 4-5 times before you have a winning design. The learning curve is just too expensive for a sheet metal house to bother. They would rather take the easy path and look at the published ratings of others and then fudge a little over that in their advertising of a similar design. After several generations of one-up-man-ship, you get pretty out of control. Those that do some mock testing load the deck in many ways so they can make claims with a clear conscience. When you see those brand x videos where they show a side-by-side test, pay close attention. Look a the inside of their safe that looks so much better inside. They compare a 2-3 layer safe to a 1-layer safe. They don't put any carpet on any of the interior parts, because that stuff turns to crap at steam-exposure temperatures. There are so many tricks you can play in a test like that it's sick.

Fifth, those pesky follow-up services. If you get a UL rating, to maintain that rating you need to open your doors to regular, and random, unannounced product inspections. A Follow-up Procedure is issued, which is a precise book of specifications, including every aspect of the design. The UL Inspection Engineer that visits you, without warning, goes out to your production line and selects a safe to go thru... from top to bottom, every detail is checked. Any anomalies or mis-matches earn you a Variation Notice. The process of clearing one of those is painful, and costs you a couple thousand bucks to fix. If the problem is serious, the inspector can pull your label on the spot and shut you down. It can take weeks and even months to get back into listing product, not to mention it is real expensive. So, how many manufacturers are willing to live with these constraints? In this market, the safe designs evolve every year. In a listed fore safe, any change requires another test ordeal because the changes void the label. Small companies won't do this, so large companies with the horsepower can't do it either, because they won't be able to compete.

There are other factors, but the five I listed here make the reality of UL rated fire safes on the scale of Gunsafes totally impractical.. It's a deep hole that nobody is motivated to crawl out of.

That story about firearms and liability and the potential hazard is another myth. Didn't happen.

Thank you very much for the explanation on the BF series as well as the UL rating mess!!

For the last several years even after getting my BF6030 my plan has been to rely on the safe for moderate smash and grab attempts but no for fire protection.  I have all of my guns insured for replacement cost and plan on needing to use that.

Do you see a flaw in my plan as from what you say even the best rated "Gun Safe" isn't up to the task of a fully involved structure fire?  I had no illusions when I bought the safe that it would stand up to such abuse and from what you say it most likely won't, however, it should be a step above the average gypsum board insulated safe correct?

To follow on with the UL Gunsafe subject...

One thing that is hard to grasp is the difference is what we all seem to accept as a reasonable fire exposure level for home fires. There are sketchy stories all around that claim there are statistics that prove home fires usually don't exceed 1200ºF, and that those event are usually controlled in under 30 minutes. That photo above was much more intense and longer that that.

So, now we have a temperature limit that most feel is representative of fire exposure. Now, how do we get to that temperature? On what curve? This is where a lot of cheating can happen. But, it's clear there is no standard fire curve. Everyone has their own curve they publish, and those that have tested probably have another "special" curve they don't publish. This is all about thermal energy delivery. Without a standard, there is no common ground to compare different models.

Underwriters Labs uses the standard ATM E119 curve. It is a brutal exposure profile that climbs rapidly to very high temperatures. A few key points for your interest:

Time  Temp
2......500
5......1000
10.....1300
20.....1462
30.....1550
45.....1638
60.....1700
90.....1792
180....1925

Not only is the Time-Temp curve severe, the furnace is unique. The walls of the Ul furnace are refractory brick, not fiber panels like every other furnace in the USA. Why does that matter? ... because the brick heat and impose a secondary heating source by radiant infra-red energy. I placed surface probes on a safe that we tested at UL and the same safe at another popular lab. The UL furnace consistently yielded 200-250º higher surface temperatures above that of the other fiber-lined furnace. That is not a trivial difference, it is huge.

So.... you can see that UL testing is in another league... no, it's on another planet.

You are welcome. I hope that this is practical information.

Insurance is never a bad idea. I have a rider on my homeowners policy to cover more than they will cover as "standard". You would be surprised how little they cover if you ask detailed questions. The additional coverage is not that expensive. If you have more than a couple thousand $$ in weapons and valuables, a secondary policy is pretty important in my mind. You are prepared for the worst, that's a great plan.

We sell the BF safe line, as well as three lines of gyp-board safes. They are priced accordingly. You get what you pay for in this industry. For those that spend big money for exotic safes with extreme paint jobs, lots of useless big shiny bolts, complex gears, fancy interiors and glitzy hardware, that is money wasted when the burglary or fire strikes you. If you're serious about security and fire, buy the products that offer the best of those features. That's what the BF safe line is. The best of the key features, without a lot of excess.

If you want to really step up and invest in a real safe, go for the CE or CF line (RE & RF in our Gunsafe lineup). These safes offer a solid 2-hour factory fire listing that does mean 2-hours at extreme UL exposure levels. They also provide supreme burglary resistance with genuine UL ratings. Nobody else in the Gunsafe industry has anything like these safes we sell in the high-security Grocery Chain, high-end Retailer, Fast Food, Jewelry, Pawn, Pharmaceuticals and Banking industries. They are the defacto-standard for commercial security and fire protection. When it comes to security and fire protection, there are no others in this business that stand up to the technology and product quality that AMSEC brings.

Sorry, I did a bit of selling there, but it's important to know who you are dealing with when you buy something this expensive. You don't look at Kia when you want a big truck to pull 15,000 lbs, right? same difference....

Ask yourself this question. How much do you have invested in that gun collection. I know I have a modest collection valued at maybe around $8,000-$10,000. I know I see many safe pictures with dozens of $1000+ guns. Does it sound smart to put that kind of value in an $800 safe you bought at CostCo?

I sorta see that. Quality gun insurance is much cheaper per/k insured than jewelry because they are simply lower risk. Insurance quotes for folks are 3.50 per thousand or $175/year for a 50K policy.

IIRC jewelry is 2x-3x that number because its higher risk of loss, fraud, and burglary.

I feel like a RSC is fine for 99% of gun owners who choose to also insure. If you have cash, jewelry, bullion, its probably best to get a proper safe for those and ideally a small one that is discrete.

I still feel fire is the most likely threat and there will be some damage in any safe. I am willing to pay effectively $3.50 per gun, per year to know that no matter what they are covered.

I appreciate your information and will heed it in the future.  If/when I ever move I know that my safe is staying in the basement as I'm NOT bringing back up the stairs

I will be sure to look at the other lines of safes you mentioned as I have a substantial $$ investment in my collection and wound up seeking out Collectibles Insurance to cover me as they have reasonable rates and a great reputation.

Looking at the weights of them I will need to make sure the new house could support them as security/fire resistance == big weight as in it won't be going in the basement after the house is built

I said it on another thread, and I'll repeat it here. This may not suit your thinking, but if you are storing any more than immediate needs ammo volume in your safe, get it out of there. Keep only what you think you need to fight off the first wave of zombies. Your go bag, a few loaded mag's and a box of double-ott.

Think about all we are discussing here, and then consider the destructive nature of the mountain of ammo that most people seem compelled to keep in the safe along side the weapons. That is Foolish with a capital S for STUPID. If you have a fire, what is that pile of brass encased gunpowder going to do inside that box?

Don't find out... just store it somewhere else.

Here is a simple idea that we can all afford... Build or modify a cabinet in your garage, away from ignition points like the water heater. Line the cabinet with 2-3 layers of drywall on all sides. Do the same on the back face of the door. Don't worry about seals, just make it as tight as you can. If you're concerned about theft, put some angle-iron around the door edges and attach with carriage bolts so the round heads are on the outside. Put one or two good padlocks to secure the door, and attach a couple of short chains to the hinge-side to keep the door from being removed. Now stack your precious ammo mountain in there and know that the contents of your safe just gained a big edge in fire survival.

The Auxiliary lock option is there for commercial customers. I think Frank said it right, they use this as a "Daylock." In the abstinence of a digital primary lock, the mechanical primary combo lock is tedious to use when you get into the safe dozens of times every day. The result is that people tend to leave the door closed with the lock left dialed open, such that a turn of the handle opens the safe. Then, someone figures the routine out and steals something, or it's left unlocked overnight and they get burglarized. Digital Keypad Locks remedy this problem because they auto-lock when the door is closed and the boltwork is thrown to the locked position. They are quick to open, so the nuisance is relieved. When the customer still insists on a mechanical lock, the auxiliary Keylock is their solution to daytime theft by using the Key to open and lock during business hours.

The auxiliary lock is not necessary, as stated, to pass the UL testing. However, a second lock, even the Keylock, adds a layer of delay in opening when a professional attack is attempted. The S&G Key-Op FAS Lock is actually and amazing lock that is very hard to open. I am a pretty highly experienced lock designer and I know the methods for defeating these types of lock. There is a reason S&G imports the FAS lock. It's quite good. For home use, you might consider a secondary digital lock if you want to step security up a notch.

Three-way boltwork, as a stand-alone option for ANY safe is a royal waste of money. When you look at some of these Gunsafe guys with umpteen giant bolts going in every direction, it's no more than window dressing. I can still put one hole in the door and open the safe. It serves no purpose unless it is somehow enhanced with independent interlocking, which is what the Glass Relock Trigger and Auxiliary Relockers do on the AMVault and CFX lines. In these products, the Glass panel protects the Auxiliary lock from drill attack, such that it will shatter if punched or drilled. That releases one or two cross-locked auxiliary Relocking Devices that engage the upper and lower vertical live bolts. Now, you have a valuable added level of security because the vertical locking bolts are independently locked out when the lock is attacked. These are favorite options in the Jewelry and Pawn Safe markets, where the Daylocking is used.

So, they have value in the particular way they are deployed.

BTW. I have been teaching safe penetration for more than 20 years. When I first started at AMSEC, I learned from an old-timer expert locksmith that we hired as our Service Manager. He gave me 5 years of his best know-how before he passed away tragically from a internal infection. Charlie Ramsey, you were the best of the best... rest in peace.

One other note for credibility. I designed the first retrofit-able electronic safe lock back in 1990. I have several patents in my name. I have designed 6 generations of leading edge safe locks, working on a few more right now. I leave for China again tomorrow night for another week of vendor meetings and factory oversight. We have several waves of new electronic products coming out this year, and more to come. We are the leader in the lock business too, with better reliability than any other brand in the market.

How hard is it to take one of your locks and replace another vendors/makers lock?

And are you speaking of electronic or combo?

Safe travels and thank you for the detailed comments.  Would enjoy hearing anything else about the Swedish lock as long as it does not compromise any security in ANY way. So sorry to hear about your former friend and coworker and his untimely death.

The AMSEC locks are all digital. We currently sell retrofit kits, the ESL10 or ESL20 (the ESL20 has multiple users and a few other access control features). You can pick them up at practically any safe dealer nation wide.

Thanks. I don't relish these long trips. 15 hours in an airplane is not much fun.

The S&G FAS Locks are just very well designed Swiss gold. The lock has dozens of European, and other international ratings. I have never heard of one being defeated by picking/manipulation. The opposing lever design is genius in it's simplicity and security. Not a cheap lock, but worth it.

Modern UL rated locks share a common foot print which makes changing them around pretty straight forward.  Sometimes minor modification is needed, but you can go from manufacturer to manufacturer, model to model, or mechanical to electronic (or the other way around) fairly easily.

I've had pretty good luck with the AMSEC ESL line.  They are the only safe manufacturer that has their own UL rated lock, so they tend to be the standard electronic option on their safes.  We have also retrofitted them on several other types of safes, many in commercial use, with zero complaints.

What's the latest on any redundant lock offerings from AMSEC?  In my opinion, this is a segment of the market y'all are failing to capture.  I recently purchased an ESL 10 lock safe but really wish I could have a redundant mechanical lock, just in case.

This may sound arrogant, but if you have a good digital lock, you don't need a redundant mechanical backup that triples the cost. That's pretty simple. We stand by our warranty, ask anyone. When you make locks that fail at high rates (like the ones that now come in redundant versions), then there is a good reason for them. These guys (safe company un-named) are scaring people with the idea that an  EMP attack will render your safe locked out.

Do you really think there is a high risk of an EMP detonation in your area?

Do you expect to survive a nuclear blast that was close enough to disable electronics with an EMP pulse?

Did you ever consider the idea that the safe is a huge EMP barrier, and the lock electronics inside are not likely to fail?

Let me ask you this question... if this was so important, why is it that only one lock manufacturer (a newcomer in the industry) is making the redundant lock, whereas others like AMSEC have been making reliable locks single mode for over 20 years? This fever for the redundant lock is fueled by scare tactics fed by the guys that have been burned by crappy locks. Don't get sucked in.... it's another way to take your money.

Did you know that the company that makes that lock signed an exclusive sales deal with (safe company un-named). Why would they do that?

And, oh, by the way, does that redundant EMP lock have a UL rating? (no)

Oh, and did you know that that if that lock does not have a UL Type 1 listing, it VOIDS the UL RSC rating of the safe?

Oh, my, did you know that makes it illegal to sell that safe in California?

...sometimes I have to roll on the floor laughing at some of the crazy things people dream up. Worse yet, I feel sorry for the poor suckers out there that get fooled by the pitch.

Regarding electronic locks, why do most companies (including Amsec I believe) only stand behind them for 1-2 years?  Frank has stated that, unlike mechanical locks, electronic locks tend to not provide warning signs before they fail.  I think most firearm safe buyers would prefer an electronic lock, but mechanical locks are reported to last far longer than their electronic counterparts (I realize that e-locks are used with much success in commercial applications where they see heavy use).  The idea of being locked out of your own safe, and having to fork over hundreds of dollars to a safe tech isn't a pretty picture.  I would love to buy a RF6528 w/ an e-lock, but what is that going to cost to drill?  There are companies like Brown and Fort Knox that will stand behind the electronic locks they sell for many years, but this is the exception, not the rule.  





Is SecureRam the only company that makes a backlit UL listed e-lock for safes?





Switching topics, I would like your input on a topic that is probably outside your expertise to some degree.  In the unlikely event that a person's firearms experience a house fire, how would one go about determining whether or not those firearms are safe to use?  I saw a recent post in the refinishing forum where the owner had a firearm that was severely rusted from being in a fire.  The person used electrolysis to remove the rust, and was planning on using the firearm again.  I'm not sure that is a smart idea.

 

Respectfully I have to disagree. Most everyone has a self cleaning oven these days. Self cleaning ovens' cleaning cycles are at 1000F to 1200F for 3 hours and use only around 2 inches of fiber insulation. If the insulation on these ovens conducted heat as you are saying, we would be hearing of many more house fires caused by self cleaning ovens I would think.

I respect your opinion, but you have ignored the key physics in that example. When you run the cleaning cycle on your oven (I have one like you describe), the heat is on the inside and maintained at a somewhat constant temperature by the thermostat. The element you are missing is that the outside of that oven is HOT and releasing that energy by convection, radiation and some conduction.

Again, simple thermodynamics... the energy inside is migrating thru the walls in every direction to the outside, But, in this environment, there is an escape for the energy. Have you touched your oven when this is running? Mine is so hot it would probably burn my hand. My guess is that surface is over 160º, maybe more. I know I made the mistake of touching the glass on the door once, I left meat on the glass. That surface is more like 300º or more. So, the outside has reached an equilibrium temperature based on the ambient environment's temperature and freedom to circulate the heat and draw the energy away from the vessel.

You run the exhaust fan when you do the cleaning. That's removing the energy from the environment. Also, heat rises, so you don't perceive much of that heat release because it's well over your head and dissipating in an open environment throughout your home.  So, yes, the oven walls are conducting heat. If they weren't, the outside of the oven would not warm up. For your logic to be true, the outside of the oven would never warm up. That's obviously not the case.

In the analogy of the glass of water applied to the oven system, there is a hole in the side of the glass that is allowing the escape of energy (water). If the size of that hole is not big enough to remove water at a rate faster than the water steam coming in, then the water level (temperature) continues to rise. If the hole is big enough to remove all of the incoming water stream, then there is a point of equilibrium (a stable water level, or outside temperature). Don't forget that the oven is also regulating the energy going into the system, such that a limit is maintained on the internal temperature.

So, the oven cleaning cycle has a path for energy loss. The passive insulation walled safe in a fire has no path for removing energy. If there is no path for energy to escape, the temperature rises continuously until equilibrium is reached (inside = outside), The Second Law of Thermodynamics is in force, and thermodynamic laws are not subject to opinion. It is a scientific fact. I'm sorry, but this is not a debate of opinions, these are scientific truths that follow the physics of our natural world. There is no debate on the matter. If you choose to not believe, then I wish you well.  

Addendum regarding self cleaning ovens.

These products are subject to UL testing under UL 858 and ANSI Z21.1. Here are the outside component temperature limits used for testing:

Surfaces
Plastic 182F
Glass or ceramic 172F
Porcelain 160F
Painted or bare metal 152F

Handles and Knobs
Plastic 167F
Glass 149F
Painted or bare metal 131F

Given that, and knowing that the ambient temperature is typically 72-78º in your home, a nearly 100º temperature differential is present. When there is a temperature differential, there is heat transfer. With a dT that large, there is a lot of heat energy released.

i know the laws of thermodynamics very well but thank you for expanding on your points for those who haven't taken thermo. So as you know, heat transfer doesn't care whether it's transferring inside or transfer outside, it is the same to heat as it will move from hot to cold. So you seem to be suggesting that the entire inside surface area of an oven that is at over 1000F for 3 hours is kept in equilibrium by natural air convention currents and radiate heat on the outside of an oven so as not to exceed 160F at its surface (in your case but you might have an old oven)? If you are saying that, then we are in agreement because the amount of heat the environment can remove by natural air convention and radiate heat from the outside of an oven is minimal in comparison to the amount of heat the 2 inches or so of fiber insulation has to resist transferring.

I also agree that a safe is a sealed environment, well at least for one with a passive insulator that doesn't have steam and pressure produced within that would blow out door seals. Being that it is sealed and dry, heat conduction has to be done through dry air which as you know is not very effective for conducting heat, convention will be only from the natural air movement within the safe as some materials warm up while others are still cool, so radiate heat is likely the primary mode of heat transfer within a passively insulated safe. What's nice about gun safes, they are full of heavy black body masses (guns) that are pretty effective at absorbing the minimal amounts of radiate heat being emitted (ceramic and other fibers are very effective at blocking radiate heat entering for the outside). So if an oven going through a self cleaning cycle where the interior temperature is between 1000 to 1200F for 3 hours can keep it's exterior surface temperature at 160F (I'm thinking it's only around 130F in my case) by being able to lose the extra heat transferred to the environment, how could you possibly think that the inside of a passively lined safe with 2 inches of fiber insulation would hit 350F in 20 minutes? The immature thing to do now would be to say I give you an F in Thermo so I won't, but definitely a C- for effort.

Interesting discussion. I would love to see a real world side by side test.  One thing I'm not sure I understand. The safe guy mentions that the heat energy has to go somewhere, i.e. create steam, which fabric cannot do. Why does the energy have to go Into the interior of the safe? Wouldn't a good insulator like the ceramic cause the heat energy to go elsewhere like the outside body steel, the exterior air, etc? I'm assuming that is the purpose of insulation to begin with.

I don't know about any of this, but my built in oven creates no, I mean zero, heat in the cabinets just a couple inches above it. I've checked because I was worried about some medication stored up there. Obviously there is heat loss in the door but still..........

Off the top of my head -

1) A self-cleaning oven has a thermometer in it, and once the temperature reaches a certain level, it quits dumping more energy inside the box.  A safe exterior is continually exposed to excess energy.

2) A self-cleaning oven has surface area in a climate-controlled room that's a comfy 70 degrees or so, and heat can dissipate into the room.  A safe interior has no place to dissipate heat, unless that heat is 'used' to effect a phase change in something.

You can't compare the physics of CONTAINING heat vs EXCLUDING it without considering issues like these.


Also, the condescending manner in which you're handing out physics grades doesn't really advance your argument.

No, again you miss the point. The inside of your oven is in no way "equalizing". It is controlled by the thermostat of the oven. The heating is on the inside, and it is "controlled" by a thermostat. The heat loss is going out thru the walls, and into the environment around the oven. you can't compare this open system to the safe example, it's the opposite set of conditions, and the passive safe has no mode to remove or consume energy.

Insulation does not "resist" heat transfer, it simply transfers heat at a slower rate that a less effective insulation. Heat transfer is a constant process of energy passing thru a material. Insulation may not conduct well, but it does conduct. that's what R-Value measures. It measures "Thermal Conductivity". By definition, it conducts heat energy.

For the fantasy of passive insulation to come true, at some point some mechanism need to halt the energy transfer. That does not happen, ever, anywhere. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. If I pump a continuous flow of energy into a closed system, it will heat up until the system reaches equilibrium. That's not an opinion, that is scientific fact.



Answer... an extensive education in Thermodynamics and over 30 years of real world thermodynamic systems engineering and fire testing, and the knowledge required to understand that thermodynamic laws are proven as empirical fact.

You keep missing the fundamental point that is confusing your thinking, there is no place for the energy to get out. that requires that the temperature rises without restriction. With the oven example, that high surface temperature is releasing the energy that is moving thru that insulation. The internal temperature is REGULATED by a thermostat to control the amount of energy delivered to the interior. If your system were that good, you would be able to turn oiff the fire once you hit your goal temperature. Try it some time, the temperature will fall rapidly as the energy is transferred away from the interior thru the insulation.

I have had this debate with people like you. You have some invested bias that is tainting your ability to listen to the science. I suspect you have bought one of those types of safes. Like I said before, they aren't useless, they are simply inferior. Under moderate conditions and limited time of exposure, I'm sure your guns will survive. If I weren't in Industry, I could easily get a job teaching this subject at college level. That is my level of knowledge on this matter. Sorry if I insulted you with the F, that was unnecessary.

I sort through this and the conclusion I make is a self cleaning oven dumps a bunch of btus into the room which is absorbed by everything in the room.

If you were to put the oven in a confined space it would get very hot and likely trip a fail safe of some sort.

TheSafeGuy,
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions here, it is appreciated!    


Just recently upgraded my safe to a larger one.  We have 9'-0" high ceilings in our house with
typical 3'-0" x 6'-8" residential entry doors.  The house is wood frame construction with brick veneer on the exterior.  
The interior walls are gypsum board with various tile and hardwood floors.  The roofing material is composite asphalt
shingle.  


Couple Questions regarding the upgrade:  

1)  Should we use the garage door for entry or front door?
2)  Do you recommend lining the floor with an overlay to prevent scratching tile or wood?
3)  Can I do this job with an appliance dolly, a beer drinking buddy and my kids?  
4)  If the safe is larger than any fire we anticipate will the safe kick the fires ass?  
5)  Being that the safe is yellow in color, will the fire see this as friendly and go around it?  Therefore not causing any heat?  
6)  Can a rail gun be safely stored in said safe?  
7)  Will a motion sensor work effectively in a dark safe when door is closed?
8)  What is typical height of safe cracker??  I would like to mount the combo above this height to deter them.  


Pic of safe below:

That's pretty funny shit right there. I first saw this safe at the SHOT Show in Vegas three years ago. Those guys at Champion have a great sense of humor, and they make a fine safe line too. They are very friendly too. It's nice to be able to talk to competitors like these guys without a bunch of spite and distrust like some others in this business. I understand they have actually have sold 6-7 of those beasts. I can't imagine who could make use of such a monster, but that what the owner told me..

The price-tag on the side said $11,999.00 in 2010. I go to SHOT every year. Have not missed one in 25 years.

2013 NRA........

You just have missed the fact that Rockola wasn't the one who started handing out the grades! I think thesafeguy picked  fight with someone who not only has a degree in this stuff but does this for a living.

I take responsibility for starting it, sorry. It was a joke, but not taken as such apparently. I teach a lot in a classroom environment, safe technology, penetration, lock technology, UL ratings, firesafe technology, safe ratings, diagnostics, service and a lot more. That would have been received as funny in my world. I apologized.... twice now.

Are you trying to tell me that Rocko has a degree in Engineering and does fire protection for a living? Seriously?

I don't know about all ovens, but my oven has an opening that comes through one of the stove burners.  It's very much an "open" system.  God help you if you place your hand over it when the oven is in use.



Safe Guy-

Did you miss my questions earlier towards the top of the page?