Sorry about that, I did miss that...



Well, warranty is something that a manufacturer has to live with once they make a commitment. We have been in this business for 67 years already. We plan on being here in 100 more years. When you are producing a device or component that wears, it's not economically feasible to warranty the item for life. A safe lock is like a wheel bearing in your car. It will probably go 200,000 miles or more, but at some point it will be done. We have already sold something like 4 million locks in the last 20 years. Those numbers are growing exponentially as we come out with more and more high reliability safe locks products. Do the math, it's scary big numbers when these things have a finite life. We design and test our locks for 1 million cycles. It only requires 10,000 cycles to get a UL Label (read this as a goal for some lock makers). In a commercial environment, a lock can be opened 200-300 times per day. These guys can easily use up a lock in 10 tears, and I will tell you most of the other locks out there won't live 1 million openings. We don't do anything that your car manufacturer doesn't do. We have to limit our long term liabilities, or you'll go broke. If you buy a car and the engine blows the month after the warranty ends, are you complaining to the dealer to get it covered? The guys that warranty these things for extended periodsg are asking for big financial trouble down the road. The safe guy is eating that warranty, because the lock maker is not. The risk is too great, and the costs are too high, particularly when you use brand X locks that have a failure rate of over 5%. It's just good business planning.



Last year we released the ESL5, and we are now installing that as standard equipment on several lines. It has a back-lit keypad. It also has a stealth mode, where you can turn off the beeper.



These will be available in retrofit kits later this year.



I would only say that if there was enough heat applied, the metal could be annealed. If that happened, then that barrel will never withstand the pressure of firing. I'm with you, that sounds a little crazy.

Incidentally, did you know an S&G 6730 Mechanical Combination Lock is totally worn out in around 30,000 cycles?

Statistically, e-locks in general are not as reliable. But, the locks we make have proven to be more reliable than the best mechanical. I can't say that about any other lock in the market, and we sell them all, track service history and failure rates. We will put whatever lock you want on our products, all you have to do is order what you want. We stock every popular lock on the market.

I recently bought a Fort Knox and the warranty on the elock (lagard redundant in my case) was a selling point.

One of my biggest reasons for not choosing amsec was the warranty.

Here's a few reasons I would give you to justify offering a lifetime warranty on the locks on your consumer safes

-locks and warranty issues are high cost but low frequency
-people buy a safe expecting to have it for decades

Let say the total cost to the manufacturer is $800 per incident, but the incident only happens to 1% of safes over a 50 year period, the cost is $8 per safe to have the warranty.

I am not an extended warranty guy but on a safe like this I'd happily pay an extra $20 or more to have the sense of security.

This is not like a car where every safe owner over time is going to have an issue.

I'm certain you could even find a third party happy to take the money and put it in escrow.

Are you suggesting that if my safe with your UL listed lock is opened an average of 2 times per day, it will very likely still be working when my grandchildren have grandchildren?  By my math, it would take over 1300 years to reach 1 million cycles.  The information you provided is impressive.  I pictured your company as a safe company that one day said, "what the hell, let's make a lock" even though it wasn't your area of expertise.  Often companies will make products outside of their area of expertise in an effort to grab part of the market, and will end up building substandard products.  



Is the ESL5 UL listed?  Does it wear as well as the ESL10?  Why would someone choose the ESL10 over the ESL5?  I was planning on requiring a Laguard or S&G, but you may have changed my mind.



Do you mind telling us your name?  I'm Jason.  Once again, I want to thank you for your contributions to this site, and I hope you stick around.  I don't know what else I can do to show my appreciation.  



 

I certainly hear you. Believe it or not, I am cataloging everyone's comments. These issues like this will come to the attention of the other owners when we have our next planning and board meeting.

+1 especially for the higher security safes like the RF6528.



I still would like to know if there is any benefit of the ESL10 vs the ESL5 per my earlier question.



 

Does this only apply to composite safes?  What about TL-15 and TL-30 safes that are plate steel?



Can you tell me why the TL-15 safes in the HS series are more expensive than the RF6528?  Is it because they use plate steel vs. composite?



 

I'm not sure if that person is testing a safe or a jail cell window.



 

Sorry, had to fly to China. I'm way over there now.

Yup...This performance expectation is our standard, always has been.

Is the ESL5 UL listed?  Does it wear as well as the ESL10?  Why would someone choose the ESL10 over the ESL5?  I was planning on requiring a Laguard or S&G, but you may have changed my mind.

UL Type 1 testing is in process right now, should be done in 2-3 weeks.

Yes, the ESL5 has successfully opened 1,000,000 cycles.

ESL5 has a back-lit keypad, and allows you to mute the beeper. It's also very low cost. We can now make it standard equipment on several lines.

As always, thank you for sharing, fascinating stuff!

On an unrelated note, when the U.L. experts attack a safe during a test and the time elapses (like 30 minutes tool touching safe), do they ever continue the attack such as a personal quest for their own information of what it is going to take to compromise this #%^&&*!!&&# safe!

What is the difference from the ESL10 from several years ago and the current ESL10XL?  Have there been any improvements, I was wondering if it would be worth it to upgrade to a ESL10XL if you have a ESL10.  





Also it is normal for the solenoid on a ESL10 (with a fresh battery) with a BF series safe to not retract at times if the handle is turned clockwise so there in pressure on the lock bolt?  I am not talking about holding force on the handle when attempting to unlock just if the handle is turned to the right so the mechanism is pressing against the bolt.





Thanks!

 

China, huh?  I, um, hear business is easier on a vacation visa vs. a business visa.  Is that true?



Any chance you've convinced China to defund North Korea?  You would go down in the history books, just sayin'.



Anyway, another good story and good info.  Thank you.



 

Safe guy, I am looking a a BF6030 safe, very impressed on the specs so far, I know the door is 1/2" with drilite filling, but what thickness are the walls in this safe? I know the thickness is 2", and the catalog says that the total metal thickness is 7ga. What is the outside plate thickness on this safe. Thank you for any info!  Jay.

There has been a few funny episodes where it was very close and the Engineer wanted to see if that few extra blows with the pick or whatever would have finished the job. As you can imagine, the best listing is one where you JUST pass the test. The idea is to minimize the cost incorporated in the design, and anything of the rating time is wasted in the competitive sense of the listing. I will say, the current X6 body ended up a large margin of over-kill, but not so much so that we needed to reduce the barrier.

Incidentally, I was reading another thread somewhere here, and someone said the UL RSC test was a 2-man team. That incorrect. There is only one guy doing the attack on that test.

The first generation ESL10 has an aluminum dies-cast case, a plastic internal relocker and a molded plastic keypad. The second generation ESL10XL has a much heavier zinc die cast case, a steel relocker and and a zinc dies cast keypad too.



Yes, it's not uncommon. The direct pull solenoid is extraordinarily reliable because of the simplicity, but the pull force can not overcome too much side pressure. That is why we have evolved most safes to have a boltwork detent or an over-center cam so the relaxed position in the locked condition mitigates the pressure.

Thank you, interesting, I too thought it was a two man test, has it changed?  I know the one U.L. attack video were they zip the metal skin in a few seconds and go at it there are two guys, the video is from the 70's as I recall.

I'm not here for political reasons. I'm here to assure you continue to get the best products at the lowest prices. That's what you, the consumers, demand.. So, it's your fault I'm over here, LOL.

The walls are actually just a little over 2", actually 2-3/16 thick. The steel is now 12-gauge outside and 16 -gauge inside. The net nominal steel is 0.105 + 0.060 = 0.165. The thickness of 7-gauge is 0.178, so to say it's equal is a little bit of a stretch. But, realistically, 0.013 inches of steel is nothing in the measure of attack resistance. I really have to say that you guys that are so concerned with the steel thickness are really splitting hairs. Unless you step up to like 3/8 plate walls, the variants in body steel is trivial when it comes to attack resistance. First, those hacks that beat on bodies rarely get in, and the guys with good saws are always going to get in unless you step it up considerably to TL15 or something serious. I see all of these debates about 12 gauge, 11 gauge, 10 gauge and even 7 gauge and 4 gauge, and how one is SO much better. Do some steel cutting, you will stop arguing about these trivial differences.

The RSC listing was created in 1996, first listed by Granite Security, we were the second ones awarded that rating that same year. Granite went to UL and persuaded them to create a new listing. It was their shot at stardom and notoriety as a new company. The president of Granite was my boss, and the former president of AMSEC.

So, that test you saw was not an RSC test, it was a sales demo test by some manufacturer to convince people to step up, not a UL test.

This is the test I saw, it is called Meilink TL-30test at U.L. to make sure we are talking about the same test,

Linky

I 100% agree about the arguing 12 Ga, 11 Ga, etc and finally saw the light and I no longer worry when I am away from home.

So, shifting from safes, how about locks, do you see many interesting locks that are worthy of comment. I have owned Abloy ASSA, Medeco, and Mul T Lock personally.  I have seen paracentric locks in use like Southern Steel and Folger Adams, also some interesting locks used in the Gaming Industry that are uncommon.

Ahhhh, the good ole days. Lanny, Dave, Leon and Frank at UL in the dungeon. Boy that was a team to beat.



There are some great locks out there, but for UL rated products, there is a very narrow band. Either UL768 (mechanical) or UL2058 (digital), you won't see any others on safes with ratings.

Would it be accurate to say that for some less sophisticated attacks, thicker guage may at least add some time? I put it in the "it can't hurt" category. These RSC boxes aren't (shouldn't be) intended to take the place of a real safe and resist serious attacks.

yea, no argument that there might be small advantages to small wall thickness differences, but let's be practical. If someone has 17 minutes to break in, is it really gonna make a measurable difference if he spends another 30-45 seconds? That is the order of differences we are measuring here when cutting metal with conventional cutting tools.

Thank you very much for the info, now I need to find a dealer to order.   Jay.

How good is the security of the CSC4520E1?  Does it have an type of UL security rating?  Does it rely on steel or concrete for security?





It looks to be a good size for the bedroom for quick access to rifles and handguns, along w/ storage of other miscellaneous valuables.

Resisting heat transfer is the ultimate fire protection. If you are able to greatly limit (not saying stop and never have) the amount of heat to cross a given barrier in an amount of time, considerations of energy absorption from calcination or heat of vaporization of water aren't necessary.

The thermal conductivity of high quality fiber insulation runs in the 0.03 to 0.06 Watts / (meter * Kelvin) range. Compare that to a lightweight concrete mix with aggregates of Perlite and/or Vermiculite that will typically be around 0.2 to 0.4 W/m*K range; higher density concrete conductivity are around 1.8 W/m*K but adding extra moisture or metal nuggets or metal fiber to the concrete mix will increase the thermal conductivity of the concrete. So in the best case, concrete is conducting heat are around 5 to 10 times the rate of fiber and in the worse it is 60+ times as fast.

Additionally, fiber insulation stores little heat whereas concrete stores massive amount of heat (I.e., heat capacity of fiber verses concrete). For a passively lined safe insulated with fiber, most all of the mass and heat is on the steel shell so if a fire hose cools the outside of the safe, the heat is removed immediately and contents can begin to cool right away. For concrete, that is not the case; massive amounts of energy is stored within the concrete after a fire and will continue to cook the contents of the safe for hours after a fire has ended (2nd law again).




Just to be clear, I never have said a passive insulator will stop heat from entering a safe only that it will greatly slow the penetration of that heat and really that's all any of us need. The contents of a passively insulated safe remain dry and relatively cool while the house is burning down around it and the fire department is working to put the fire out. For a gun safe fire lined with gypsum drywall that conducts heat at around 5 times the rate of fiber or concrete that's conducting at 5 to 60 times the rate, calcination or vaporization of water (steam) to absorb heat is not needed  to delay the heat rising above 212F.

A fire that has been in progress for 20 minutes will not have had enough time to soak the 2 to 3 inches of insulation thickness of a passively lined safe. In fact, I doubt the inner liner will even start to be warm at this point in a fire. Once the heat does start to reach the inner liner, it will be at such a slow rate that it will transfer itself slowly to the contents of the safe allowing the temperature to slowly rise within the safe (the guns are a great heavy mass heat sink to absorb the energy transferred).

The example of the self cleaning oven is to illustrate how prevalent these fire insulating fiber materials are in our lives. I didn't think of taking a picture at the time but I looked at a GE Profile self cleaning oven and the total thickness of the sidewall couldn't have been more than 1 1/2 inches. This is a sidewall that has to hold back over 1000F for 3 to 4 hours during a cleaning cycle.

Another example which was mentioned before, Firelock media vaults that are tested to the same UL 72 criteria and ASTM curves that are used for fire rated safes the difference is the furnace is on for 5 hours and finish at around 2100 degrees F. With thermocouples attached to the walls of these media vaults, the temperature does not exceed 125F during testing. I don't have formal measurements but the walls look like about 5 inches of ceramic fiber insulation to me.  



http://www.firelock.com/overview8.htm

Not to mention that on 3 sides of the "box" of a self-cleaning oven there is nearly ZERO convection to cool the surface as it is insulated further by wood cabinets and a wall. Those materials are considered combustibles and therefore can't go above X temperature... certainly GE has accounted for that in their use of fiber insulation right?

Just out of idle curiosity, I finished doing the math you implied here, but didn't actually do.


For a typical largish gun safe that's 1 m wide, .5 m deep, and 2 m tall, the surface area (excluding the bottom) is 6.5 m^2.  Figure a 1200 deg F house fire and a safe interior that starts at a comfortable 70 deg F.  Insulation 2 inches thick (.05 m).

Q/t = k x A x tempdifference / d

= (0.03 W / m-K) x (6.5 m^2) x (921K-343K) / (.05 m)

= 2254 Watts


2254 W of continuous heat transfer through 2 inches of passive fiber insulation.  That rate of energy transfer will decrease as the safe heats up of course, but it's small consolation that once the safe contents hit 350 deg F that the ongoing energy transfer is only 1840 W.


Now, this safe has a volume of approximately 1 m^3.  If we assume for simplicity that it's empty and holds only air, we can calculate the temperature rise in a given time.  The specific heat of air is 716 J/kg-K and its density is 1.3 kg/m^3.  And 1 watt is defined as 1 J/second.  In one minute, the aforementioned 2254 W would heat the safe interior by

(2254 J/s) x (60 s) / (716 J/kg-K) x (1.3 kg/m^3) x (1 m^3) = 145 deg C

In a minute.  A whole minute.

Getting the safe interior from 70 F (21 C) to 350 F (176 C), a difference of 155 C, would take a little over a minute.


I have to say, I'm even less impressed with this material now than I was before I did the math.  Maybe this is why most safe manufacturers don't rely on passive materials for keeping safe interiors cool.

I don't own either a Sturdy or an Amsec, just a cheap POS RSC, but I am in the market for a new safe  I've been considering everything from one big expensive TL-30 monster to a pair of smaller safes, even a used media safe.  I have layered security in place already - low crime neighborhood, good locks, 140 pound scary-looking rottweiler, 20 pound noisy yappy dog, lazy indifferent cat, monitored alarm, and IP cameras.  I think fire is one of the top likely risks.  I think I just talked myself out of the Sturdy because the math tells me that passive insulation can't do the job.



Why doubt when you can do the math and know?

Rather convenient to make that assumption huh?

Considering that the mass within the safe is what the passive method relies on to keep temps cool, unless you figure a realistic mass inside the safe then your calculations don't mean squat... It takes VERY LITTLE energy to heat air up... it takes a lot more to heat steel, lead, brass, copper, and other items that would be contained in a safe. That is also why a safe that doesn't rely on evaporation of moisture will likely fail UL fire-tests but not necessarily real-life tests.

I know very little about the UL fire testing specs but I don't believe they include filling the safe with realistic contents. Maybe this is why Sturdy won't submit to the UL tests? The UL testing doesn't take all factors into consideration and would show an unfair advantage to drywall lined safes when, in fact, real-life that may not be the case...

I don't know of any testing, done by any manufacturer, that measures temperatures on a safe with contents.  That's what they're testing:  The empty air space within the safe.  I suppose this method would be the best from your view point , since it is testing against a worst case scenario.

But the 4th side vents heat. All the heat from the cleaning cycle gets dumped in the room. If you didn't have AC, it would be uncomfortable.

In an oven you are dealing with a controlled amount of energy with a huge heatsink(the room)

In a safe in a fire, you have a tremendous amount of energy and a small heatsink.

I am confident at this point that logic, science, math etc has fallen on deaf ears. The fact that folks in here have invested in "amazing fire insulators" emotionally and financially will not allow them to see whats in front of them.

If I had a passive lined safe I would look into improving the room and/or ripping it out and putting a proper heat barrier in.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

If fiber insulations sucked so bad at resisting heat transfer then certainly at 1000 degrees internal temp of your oven for 3-4 hours, the sides of your cabinets touching the oven would be scorched and smoking no during a cleaning cycle wouldn't they? It doesn't matter that the other sides are open to vent heat away. The inside is still 1000 degrees and the sides of the oven that are sealed off by cabinet walls will eventually come to an equilibrium temperature. That temperature is dependent on the R-values of the various insulators involved. Wood is an "ok" insulator. And the other side of the wood is in a "limited" convection environment (limited by how full the cabinet is) further hampering the transmission of that heat away from the cabinet.

I understand fully what you are saying, I just disagree with the logic, assumptions, and rationalizations used to come to that conclusion.

Would it make you happy if I just admit that in a UL fire test, where the safe is completely empty except for air, any safe using fiber insulation will perform poorly? Is that what you want?

How about a real-world test that mimics real contents of a safe?

I believe in the other thread where we hashed this out I offered to find a place to burn down if somebody wants to compare insulation types in a real-world test. We will put real contents in a safe, build steel boxes constructed just like typical safes found on the market (fiber insulation in one, drywall in another, and cast concrete in another if somebody is willing to provide some of said miracle material), put temp monitoring equipment inside them, and light the fire... All in the same fire, arrange in a manner where they will all be exposed to the flames as evenly as possible.

It has been done, in addition to the other individual fires in which these products have burned.

Which brings us back to why 99.9% of real fire rated safes use cast fill insulations.  

Its my belief, based on the best information I can find, that a passive insulated safe will last 1/3 ot 1/4 the time than a properly designed sheetrock lined safe. I really don't think it matters too much whether there are contents in there or not. Once again, you are talking about millions of BTUs, and saying that 100 lbs of wood and metal are going to change the results.

I accept that a fiber lined safe is better than a steel box. That being said, it seems like Sturdy tried to one up the industry and tout something as better without any real testing. It doesn't have to be a UL label. I'd love to simply see a third party test lab in an oven for x amount of time.

Really? Where is all that data? I'm curious now...

Well it all starts in the 1830s, when the first cast filled insulations were patented for use in safes.  That's 180 years of history, safes being burned in fires, side by side tests, etc,

How much time do you have?  It will take awhile to go over it all.

I did the same heat transfer calculation as you many years ago and talked myself out of getting the fire protection which I admit now was a mistake. The problem was that I used a steady state calculation as you are doing and didn't give enough consideration to the specific heat and density of the ceramic fiber itself. The Firelock example shows that after 5 hours of continuous testing in a furnace and a final temperature of 2078F, the heat has not yet fully penetrated the 5 inches or so of insulation on the walls of their media vault. In Sturdy's case, there is 3 inches of insulation thickness on the top (the hottest place during a fire), bottom and door and a somewhat compressed 2 inches on the sides. It is the combination of low thermal conductivity, specific heat and density of the ceramic fiber that will keep the heat from even reaching the interior through the walls of the safe before the fire department gets a chance to put out the fire at least for those of us with decent response times for fire departments (a 4 inch insulation option is available).

As a comparison, take a composite safe made with a high density concrete mix that has double the wall thickness but conducts heat at 60 times the rate of the fiber would be transferring heat to the interior at a rate (power) of P = 60/2 x 2254 Watts = 67,620 Watts at steady state. How much water would be needed to absorb that much heat?

Heat of vaporization (water from liquid to steam) = Hv = q / m = 2257 J/g

Energy (1Sec) = Power x Time = (67,620 J / Sec) x (1 Sec) = 67,620 J

m = (67,620 J) / (2257 J/g) = 29.96 grams of water every second needing to be vaporized to steam to dissipate that heat

Over 1 hour that would be,

m = (67,620 J/Sec) / (2257 J/g) x (3600 Sec/ Hr) = 108 Kilograms of water or 108 Liters of Water or 108 Liters x 0.2642 Gal/Liter = 28.53 Gallons of water

There will be some energy absorbed for calcination as well but 28.53 gallons of water seems like quite a bit of water needing to be held within that much concrete.

Thank you GasDoc, that was my next step in the debate was to present the math. Your assumptions are fair... in fact generous, but I would do the same.

For those that continue to disbelieve, consider the rate of heating that GasDoc has demonstrated here. Now, the reality of testing (which I have done tons of such) is that these temperatures are a bit higher than reality, mostly because of the interior mass does absorb some of the energy. We do test safes with complete interiors, but we don't place guns inside. Please don't be silly and think that somehow a few pounds of steel is the big savior here either, it's definitely not. It's actually trivial in the scheme of heating energy. If placing a dozen guns provided an advantage in testing results, then I would be placing fake guns made from steel pipe in to cheat my results. It's not worth the effort, I assure you.

Again, please.... This debate is not intended to claim that a dry-insulation safe is useless. It's only intended to show that hygroscopic barrier materials are superior, and as the exposure time extends, that superiority is considerable. My "estimate" of a 2-inch rock-wool insulated safe reaching 350º in under 20 minutes at 1200ºF is a very generous estimate. The calculations GasDoc represents assumed the outside temperature started at 1200º. To be fair, the temperature curves we use have a ramping curve from ambient to the 1200 point, usually by the 15-minute mark. So, the 145º/minute is at the 1200 point, and it is increasing up to that rate for the first 15 minutes or so. It's not a huge factor, but it does represent a little more reality that mimics testing results.

You might just get that wish.... we are preparing a series of fire tests (at a well known lab) as we debate this matter. I am considering throwing in a dry insulated model into the mix as a sales tool with real results to show the differences and end these futile debates once and for all. The thermodynamics are correct, but since dry insulation is so inferior, nobody tests it to show real performance. It's a waste of money. To do this might cost another $7,000 or more, but we are considering the value.

By the way, the energy of Calcination of a cementatious bound mix is on the order of 60 kJ/g (compared to 2.3kJ/g for water vaproization). You can't neglect the massive energy absorption of  the calcination process. It is huge, and that is why you don't need dozens of gallons of water.

Some people have been so insistent that common sense doesn't apply to safe construction, that I think they have shot themselves in the foot.  The free advertising for their company of choice can't be beat.  A Google search pulls up all of these threads across the various boards.  It's one thing to make some claims, but it's another thing to see some first hand test results.

I suppose if you poke the hornet's nest enough, you're bound to get a reaction.  When that happens, the results may not be what they had hoped for, and may have the exact opposite effect on many of their previous efforts.

I think it would be money well spent, since a quick Google search will show how many people are having conversations about these safes.

The more I read this the better I feel about my RF6528.  Now I just need to properly cover / contain the items inside against the water vapor.  I already have a couple of 30 min Sentry boxes.

SafeGuy - Thanks for your input here.  This is great stuff. I know that the education makes me that much more of a satisfied customer.  Question, is there any chance AMSEC will be offering similar containers to the 30 minute sentry boxes.  I know that I would be interested in some branded hi temp plastic / fiberglass / roto moulded / etc / containers of various sizes - for storing various objects inside the safe.  I know that you have the StorIt Cabinets but they are big $$$ and not water tight.  Some matching lower cost modular accessories would definitely look better than sentry boxes and microwave safe Tupperware.

You have an excellent solution in that RF6528. That safe will never disappoint. You paid dearly, but that was money well spent.

Unfortunately, Sentry has the bandwidth and R&D capabilities to develop those little fire boxes. There is a huge investment in that product, and they have done a fine job. With respect and dignity, I recommend that you buy the Sentry fire boxes if that suits your need. The tooling investment they have makes that product insanely cheap. We have limited resources, and we choose to spend those assets on bigger projects that fit our marketing sweet spots. Mass merchandiser Big-Box products is not our game.

This is probably a dumb question.  I'm not a chemist or engineer.

Per those figures, calcination is 26x the energy sink as water vaporization.  Is it possible to use a substance without water in it, that relies on only calcination ... and therefore wouldn't steam the hell out of safe contents?  Calcination only = 96% of the heat absorption, compared to calcination+vaporization.

I don't know, maybe pre-bake the safes?  

Well, I have been a little vague. The product of Calcination of a cementatious mix is calcium oxide (lime), carbon dioxide and water. The actual "free" water content in these mix designs is low, and it varies with ambient humidity levels. We don't have a means to measure the free water easily. We have recently been force-drying safes below Calcination temperatures, and using weight to track when the free water is eliminated. I don't have final results yet. What I will say is that the volume of steam in the first 30-45 minutes from free water is probably only 20-25% of the net steam generated. We are learning more about that as we work on trying to get wet-fill mixes to act dry....

... and, just an FYI, we already oven dry the safes. They get a 350º bake for 8 hours. This is a hidden and little appreciated expense to provide a premium filled safe.

Many think that since "concrete" is cheap, that's why the manufacturers use it:  The lowest cost material.

What they don't realize, is the process involved.  A dual wall safe has to be constructed.  The manfuacturer has to have the equipment to mix the materials on site.  Once mixed, it has to be pumped into the safe.  Often, the safe has to be shaken or vibrated to get the material to disperse evenly inside.  After that, it may very well be baked to cure the material.  There is a lot of additional labor, materials, equipment, and power needed to do all of this.

Drywall and ceramics are quite simple by comparison.  It is simply measured, cut, and stuck in.

If you are willing to spend $7000 to prove that dry insulators are so inferior, why don't you buy a fire lined Sturdy and a comparable gypsum fire lined Liberty or Fort Knox and compare against your BF safe. Let an independent lab conduct the test and publish the results. Of course, the test will also have to include the typical contents of a gun safe such as an Italian made over under with a hand rubbed oil finish on European Walnut worth over 5K as would be found in some of our (my) gun safes. I'll pitch in a hundred or more towards the cause if it is an unbiased test and these other manufacturers can witness the testing first hand, otherwise it is just more marketing propaganda which your industry has plenty of already.

*edit* Actually, rather then an actual Italian made over under, a couple blanks of Oil finished Walnut would be okay for me. Destroying a 5000 dollar shotgun would run the budget up a bit.

From all your post , I have a feeling that you work for sturdy .

We know that nobody will believe an investigative test to discredit a competitor. It's too easy to "load the deck" and build a considerable advantage. That's why nobody does it, with one exception. That's why we probably won't either. Fire tests are dreadfully expensive... which is why so many make claims based on uneducated guess-work and competitive similarities.

Those "comparative fire tests" you have seen on YouTube are bogus on a whole new level. Don't believe everything you see on the internet... or at least, pay attention to what you see, carefully.

That may be true if you were talking about a manufacturer that uses one of the mentioned materials after claiming it was the best.  However, AMSEC currently sells products using all of the above.  How would it be biased for a company that uses all of them to rank them?