My 44 gun Cannon safe is getting crammed so I am looking to upgrade to a larger and higher quality safe. I'm ready to order today if I could just decide which to get! I have narrowed my safe search to 2 safes after consulting with the guys over at the SH. I'm looking at:

1. American Security BF 7259

2. Sturdy model 6028-6 m and add on the Heavy Metal package and the Fire Proof package.

They are both in the same price range when similarly optioned and they both weigh about the same when you take into account the size differences. I live in a good neighborhood in the suburbs, so realistically I'm probably defending against a tweaker/teenager and/or a relatively short house fire.

AMSEC pluses:

A. Amsec is a well known name and has alot of experience making REAL safes/vaults. Their name and reputation is time tested.
B. Amsec has better fire proofing material according to most things I've read
C. Better looking and better interior packages (not really important to me but the Sturdy safes are damn ugly!)

Sturdy pluses:
A. Supposedly better fit and all the other advantages that come from not being mass produced
B. For the same price it's about 15% bigger (and heavier). I want to get as big as possible this time, so thats great.
C. Heavy Metal package makes the crucial side walls 4 gauge instead of Amsec's 7 guage.

I know Sturdy is a small family owned business. There are both advantages and disadvantages with that so I don't really care to hear about this. I know people on here really love the small family owned businesses and thats great, but I'd appreciate if you keep that bias out of your replies on this thread. I am looking for the overall better product regardless of back story.

Any advice or real life comparisons on these two safes (or brands) would be much appreciated!

An RSC is an RSC.
Read a little more about the physics of fire insulation. Fiberglass panels only manage the internal temperature, they do not regulate it.

I think the bottom line is that if you don't care about the fire rating that much then you should buy the sturdy.

Look, in a way, I get what your saying. But then I might as well just get a Liberty Fatboy for 1/3 the price and call it a day. So I don't think I fully agree with your assesment that all RSC are created equal.

I don't care about hte fire RATING itself, but I do care about how well it will stand up to an actual realistic house fire. That's one of my main concerns with the Sturdy. It seems like the Amsec might have better fire protection (maybe?) while the Sturdy will have better break in protection.

What do you mean by it only manages the internal temperature VS regulates it.

Thanks!

Saying an RSC is an RSC is a gross oversimplification. There is obviously a level of difference between the various safes, even if all of them have been only submitted for and been awarded the RSC listing.

Between those two options, I would get the BF if it was me. I don't think the difference between 7 gauge and 4 gauge is very much versus the vastly improved fire protection of the BF over the Sturdy.

7 gauge is pretty stout for a gun safe. 3/16" steel is a decent barrier and if someone is cutting through that, the upgrade to approximately 1/4" isn't going to stop them anyways.

If you don't feel 7 gauge walls is enough, then you probably should be looking at a different class of safe entirely.

If these 2 safes are your options, go for the better fire protection.

You can get a 4ga liner on the BF as well if you so desire.

I went with a BF6636-HD after a lot of research.  My deciding factors were the fact the HD model gave me a cast filled insulation system and enough steel in the door and walls to be essentially a B rate gun safe, 1/2 inch on door and more than 1/4 inch in body. Big factor for me was also the fact AMSEC also builds real safes, so it's likely that some of the lessons learned from that side of the business made thier way into the gun safes as well.

Had mine for over a year and I am happy with it.  These are lifetime purchases, so buy what you really want.

Well if I do the 4ga, that would be a pretty sizeable upcharge.... We are talking about like 25% more almost. So it would put it as way more expensive than the equivalent Sturdy.

I am confident I will be happy with either! Statistically it will never be tested and they will both do the job. Thats why this decision is so hard haha.

Sounds like you want an Amsec. The fiberglass insulation is a passive insulation which means that it merely keeps heat out using the thermal resistance properties. what this means is that the temperature in the safe and continue to climb for as long as heat is applied to the exterior.

Contrast this with a hygroscopic material, which uses stored water to regulate the temperature of the safe as heat is applied to the exterior. as the temperature rises, trapped water in the medium will begin to free up in the form of steam, which according to ideal gas law has a fixed temperature of around 200°F. What this effectively means is that the interior of your safe will sit around that temperature for as long as the water trapped in the medium and it is available to be freed. Only after all the water in the median has gas off of the temperature in the safe be free to rise again.

This is explained in the Amsec thread. TheSafeGuy even posted the results from one of their comparative tests.

i debated much the same thing,my final thoughts before ordering was do I go with a safe people say has fire protection or one that was actually tested in a ul lab and passed.
The answer was clear

Pete

I'm no expert but im pretty positive the Amsec is NOT Ul rated for fire protection. It's some off brand rating which has no bearing...... As far as I'm concerned, both of their fire protections are based on "yea we promise it works real good" and they both have anecdotal testimonials of when it worked. I do acknowledge that Amsec's method is used in higher end safes that are rated though, so it does seem like the time tested method.

Things like this do concern me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXVfVUW2ZkI

I know it's a promotional piece from Sturdy, but it's true that a total 3/16" separated like in the Amsec versus the solid 3/16 on the Sturdy does make a difference in strength.. (The 4ga option makes the Amsec 1k more expensive)

As a side note, where should I go for the best price on one?

Intertek ETL listing is not some 'off brand' with no bearing.It is an internationally recognized testing lab somewhat similar to UL. I wouldn't have any concern with a Intertek ETL listing.

I would go with the Sturdy myself.  More metal.

I believe Sturdy is about the best you can get in the price range in terms of resistance to brute force attacks. Especially if you get the upgraded thickness body and door.  I also believe its bolt linkage and support is superior.  

You might be interested in this recent comparison video of a simple side wall beating attack vs I believe an amsec BF

http://youtu.be/RXVfVUW2ZkI

ETA. Sorry just realized this video link was already mentioned.  

Sturdy Safe.

I've been in this business since 1990.  I have seen thousands of burglarized safes, and have yet to see one broken into with a fire axe.  

That said, Sturdy is right.  Thicker steel is better.  So if you need thicker steel, you just order the AMSEC with the heavier inner liner.

RSC as a class is pretty much a useless rating IMO, it means little based on the criteria used for testing (I.e., those crappy 12 ga Chinese made gun safes found at Walmart have passed the testing.) There are few gun safes in the RSC class that can compete with Sturdy in pry resistance or offer as much steel for the money. The AMSEC BF does offer a 4 ga inner liner but that doesn't improve pry resistance which in their case is badly needed based on their design (E.g., thin sheet metal for bolt support). As for fire resistance, neither the AMSEC BF or the Sturdy safe carry a UL rating so you'll have to look at real world results from actual burn downs  which Sturdy has a much better track record in this regard. Also, if you happen to see results of a study that AMSEC had conducted showing how their competitors safes compared in fire endurance testing verses their BF safe, don't buy any of it ... the results are a joke.

This is MY experience.  I have the Sturdy.  It's utilitarian and ugly.  It's not a Brown and not as pretty as the Amsec.  But after the thread years ago about Amsec fucking customers, I called sturdy and they were super patient as I jumped from a $500 Sam's POS to a $4k safe.  I've had it for 5 years now and am very happy.  It's never been attacked but I can't afford $10K for a bank level safe - or the cost to move it or drop it on floors that were never designed to support 3000# of safe.  

No safe is impregnable, budget is spent on utility and looks but there is a trade odd.  How companies treat their customers matter.  

...and here we go again... this argument ended when the Intertek ETL Labs fire performance graphs showed the BF going a full two hours at 1200ºF before hitting 350º inside, and the same size ceramic fiber lined safe passed thru 350º in under 9 minutes and burned out. Those results are genuine, above reproach, and the BF safe DOES bear a recognized laboratory fire rating. The ETL lab will gladly run the test for anyone, and we authorized them to share all the testing conditions and program for anyone to use independently, so they too can put the ETL label on their safes. That was two years ago now (August, 2014). As far as I know, nobody has stepped up to dispute those published results. If they did the test, I'm sure they verified our findings and quietly hoped the debate would fade away...

Sorry, but it's a not easy to be called a liar by someone that is not an industry professional that has nothing but his opinion to back up his claims... I feel compelled to share the truth...

Thank you for chiming in on the thread, I do appreciate it. hopefully you can clear a few things up for me.

I have not seen these studies. Can you point me towards them? All I've found is mountains of threads with all the same people having a pissing match. I found one thread where there were SIMULATIONS done that showed a 9 minute burn through time. However, considering it was pure simulations & the OP even retracted the graph because it was based on faulty assumptions... I wouldn't call that hard evidence. I can only assume that I'm just not seeing the actual study so thats why I'm asking for a link.

Also, if it was actually studied, did they actually test a Sturdy safe or at the very least one recreated with the same fire proof materials? I feel like "ceramic fiber" is a VERY BROAD and generic term. If I wanted to discredit Amsec, I would make a study with concrete like filler and use the worst type just to make it look bad....

At this point I am 80% sure I am going Amsec. As a customer I do feel like I cannot vote with my $$ and contribute to a company that refuses to acknowledge customer concerns about fire. This has obviously been a VERY vocal issue for years. They have a page on it, so it's obvious they know this is a big issue. I can only assume it's one of 2 things. Either business is great and they dont care OR they know it won't stand up to the muster in a real test. However, until I see the actual proof that Sturdy safes don't fair well in a fire, I just take it as a bunch of guys shooting the shit around a campfire.

" />




The ceramic fiber lined safe was an exact representation. There was no cheating in any way. Thermodynamic calculations very closely mimic the experimental results.

Id go with the BF + HD option personally. More metal and better insulation.

....You can bring a horse to water but......
Thanks for re-posting that TSG.

I'm more interested in what happened to the purple line safe. That is the only oddball item in the chart.

Early fast rise in temp is a clear indication of poor door seals. In that safe, I could tell by the poor seal geometry pre-fire what was going to happen. Te flat line above 350 shows it had fairly good steam capacity, but the internal temperature was too high when it kicked into gear. The steam could not bring the temp back down because the seals were still leaking badly.

Every inflection in every line on that chart has a cause. The knowledge builds the wisdom from decades of testing.... this is not a folly of smoke and mirrors, it's science.

Thank you. This is a big deal and I think this should be put more out there. Everyone I have talked to is still under the impression that nothing has ever been tested and it's all hear say. Maybe all of you guys in the industry know about this, but as far as I'm concerned this is still an unknown to most customers.

Do you by chance have anything more concrete than just a chart? You have a good reputation on here, so I do believe you and it has made my decision. But to be fair, I know if I show this to any reasonable person making a decision, their first thought should be that this can be drawn up in 5 minutes in excel. I think having a certified copy out there of the results should dispel alot of misinformation and make the decision process so much easier for people. I know if I saw this before posting this thread, I wouldn't have even posted the thread. It would be everything I needed to know.

EDIT: Just ordered a BF7250HD and it should be here Friday/Monday!

Unfortunately, the only documents we have are the formal test reports, and the raw data that is already well represented in the graph. The documents reveal technical details of our safes, as well as the brand names of all the competing safes tested, and we would rather not share that information. This extensive fire testing program was not about attacking or discrediting individual competing safe manufacturers, it was intended to show how the BF is a far superior fire safe, while also demonstrating to consumers how most "factory" fire labels are not backed by actual test programs. An educated customer will always be a happier customer.

Thanks. I do understand that as a company you don't want to call out competitors and things like that. I definitely respect that.

I just wish there was some kind of standard or independent tester that showed results comparing the biggest names. I know I spent hours researching something that should have been apparent right away. Most people won't spend that much time researching and will stop at the first google search (if they even went that far!).

Anyways, I know from your previous posts that you have always been a proponent of creating some kind of universal standard, so I'm preaching to the choir I guess.

Thanks again.

So tell me TheSafeguy, what thermodynamic event would occur in a passively lined gun safe at minute 12 to cause an endothermic reaction that would have the interior temperature drop from 470 Deg F to 450F? I can answer that ... none. This is a case of people setting up an thermal study without understand how a thermocouple works.

Very simple Rocky. You should have figured it out with some rudimentary logic. The TCs are mounted on the "wooden" shelving. Those temperatures are above the flash point of the wood, so the shelving is beginning to burn at that point. The inflection you see is where the shelving begins to gas off the moisture in the wood as steam, just like any other hygroscopic insulation does. That flattening out of the curve represents the interior materials releasing steam and cooling the interior down a little. And, oh my, that is an endothermic reaction as well. Since the steam is ALWAYS at 212ºF (unless pressurized), it was moderating temperatures for a short time until the wood was dried. After the steam is exhausted, the steep rise resumes enhanced by burning wood..

See, I had to go a reveal one of the secrets learned from three decades of fire testing... but to quiet the nay-sayer, I am compelled to share it. Like I said, I know what every inflection on that curve is caused by.... I won't be answering any more of your sarcastic questions with technical answers that reveal more of the science in firesafe engineering.

By the way, I have been working with thermocouples for my entire career of 38 years, and I make my own when necessary. I have an advanced understanding of how thermocouples work.. These tests were set up and run by ETL, and i assure you they know how to use TCs properly...

Just out of curiosity.  As somebody who "has no idea" what you're talking about, how many  UL fire ratings do you have under your belt?  Perhaps we could compare that to the number the other "experts" have in order to determine what weight we should give to the opinions of each.  

Frank, I think I lost count. I have run test programs at UL maybe 8 times, more at ETL and several at Mercury Labs (where we used to do our "factory" listings in the 90's). Maybe that doesn't sound impressive, but that is probably 5 times more fire testing than all the other safe companies in the US combined. Keep in mind that a fire test program may take two or three test cycles to complete, with refinements and and re-testing. We are always learning more with every new design, making changes and improving performance. Fire testing is an extremely complex engineering challenge, and things don't always perform exactly as you think it should. The costs of this kind of R&D are staggering, so not many go down this road.

I am usually a staunch supporter of dissenting opinions against 'big companies' and the such, but your out on such a lim here that I can't just stand by and not say anything. If you had some good evidence and actually held some weight in the fight, many of us would be rallying behind you for sticking it to the guy thats on the forum advertising a product from his 'big company'. Don't we all love an underdog story? But that's not whats going on here is it. I am pretty frustrated I have wasted HOURS researching this topic, and it's been so hard to sort through the mess because of misinformation like your posts. I apologize for the rant in advance but it's been pretty frustrating.

You literally have NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE of anything you say about the fire resistance of Sturdy Safes. All you have is theoretical postulation. Which is great for some discussion until objective evidence is presented, but it's not evidence and stop treating it as such. Let's look at the bigger picture here.

Don't like how the study went? Pay for one to disprove it. At this point there was one already commissioned by a competitor that showed how weak their fire insulation is. From my understanding, it was done by a reputable company (ETL) and the results were posted by a reputable poster. So at this point you are either saying the poster is a liar or the company that did the testing is a liar (or incompetent). Quit pissing on our foreheads and telling us its raining. That can be your only claims here. No more theoretical BS. It would probably turn into a pissing match if you called either one of those a liar, but atleast you would be arguing about what you believe is the real issue.

Maybe you should think about why Sturdy hasn't commissioned one yet. It's not the money. 30k is NOTHING for a real business, when it comes to protecting it's reputation. NOTHING. Example why: they just lost a few thousand in profit from me, and during my research I have seen MANY people have commented about not ordering a Sturdy only because of their lack of fire protection.

You act as if every other safe creator is an idiot. They don't know about this CHEAPER, LESS HEAVY & THINNER option that works BETTER. You think they wouldn't  just take this incredible fire lining, add some tiny amount of inert ingredient, patent/trademark their new lining, and then laugh all the way to the bank about all the money they saved?

/rant

Don't take what I said as offensive as it was not meant to be. I am just trying to get to the bottom of this so the next guy doing his research can sort the rif from the raf.

So my question to you is:
1. Are you saying that TheSafeGuy is a liar and he just made up commissioning a study and made up the results?
2. Are you saying ETL are corrupted/liars/incompetent?

Which one is it.

No offense taken but to be quite honest I've been debating this for at least 10 years now and I just don't have the same enthusiasm as I once had for the subject although I do believe the more research you do and people you speak with the more you will recognize how impressive their gun safe is for the price being charged.

As for my comment on AMSEC commissioned '3rd party study', I do have a lot of experience in instrumentation and control of furnaces and I have reviewed many similar temperature test charts and am able to quickly recognize abnormalities that others might not see. The erratic behavior of the temperature traces of the 'competitors' safes is the immediate red flag that something isn't right especially when considering that the AMSEC BF's curve is smooth and behaves as you would expect I.e., the temperature rise starts to plateau at a level you would expect which is around the boiling point of water, 212F. So looking at the AMSEC chart and all of the competitors' tests you have to ask why does this competitor's safe plateau at 300F and another plateaus at 350F which more than likely are using hygroscopy as well in the from of drywall / fireboard.  Drywall (gypsum) will start to release bonded water at a little above water's boiling point so seeing this reaction happening at 300F and 350F is not normal based the physics involved and published testing done by manufactures of gun safes using drywall as insulation.

In previous discussions with TSG, he described where the test point was located represented in the competitors' temperature traces and details involved. The test points were suspended in free air located at the upper interior of the competitors safes. The problem with the test was that the thermocouple didn't have a significant heat sink at the 'hot' junction to allow for a uniform temperature gradient in the TC wires. It is the temperature gradient in the TC wires that create a voltage difference where temperature can be calculated. How this happens is that free electrons are driven away from the source of heat in the TC wires creating a voltage that is extremely small which is in the 1/1000th (mV) level so great care and planning is needed if the test point is a weak heat sink as would be the case of trying to measure air temperature. By having the hot junction tip hanging in air, heat does get exchanged with that exposed point but that area is very small whereas the exposed area of the insulated wire is very large so just the simple task of routing the wires inside of the safe will influence the temperature reading since radiant heat, heat conduction from the inner liner exchanging heat with the wires (Sturdy safe has a steel liner) will impact the temperature gradient of the wires. In order for an accurate measurement to have been made, the wires needed to be in a shielded thermowell which is usually a highly polished stainless steel sheath where the thermocouple hot junction is connected at the very tip of the sheath. Thermocouples that are connected to the surfaces of safe do not need to be shielded since the heat sink is a strong connection and will dominate over any 'noise' caused by radiant heat or wire routing pathways. TSG had also published and described how the test was done for his safe and the test point being represented on the curve isn't even in the same location as with the competitors, the location of their test point is at the lower side wall which wasn't even the hottest point of the test because the test point at the upper side wall was significantly hotter and was also influenced by radiant heat contributions from the open burner in the furnace. If you are able to find that discussion, I identified immediately when he published his test and I mentioned the radiant heat to him sense he was confused by the behavior of the test point and I did that free of charge too just because I'm a nice guy

The ceramic fiber that Sturdy safe is using is an excellent passive insulator which will conduct heat at a small fraction of the rate the AMSEC's BF 'wet' concrete mix will conduct. Additionally, ceramic fiber is an excellent radiant heat shield which is why NASA uses it on re-entry vehicles (I.e., NASA test criteria 2000F for 45minutes unexposed side not to exceed 350F.) What really matters is how well both designs perform in a real burn down. Sturdy has an example on their website of a complete burndown that lasted 90 minutes with temperatures so hot that the steel actually was warped, there was no damage to anything inside the safe: paper was still bright white and plastic cases where not distorted. Do your research and call Sturdy and have a discussion with them about what they think of AMSEC's test. There was some photos of the contents of an AMSEC BF after a burndown of similar sized structure (single level wood framed business I recall) and the contents didn't fair as well (I.e., paper scorched on the upper shelves and other evidence of heat damage.)

By the way, ETL labs is Intertek after the name change. Google Intertek and see what you find on them around charges of falsifying data, fraud charges and fines and penalties paid; they are no UL in legitimacy for sure.

I never said that! You are so full of crap... I was very clear that ETL was instructed to set up every test sample in the exact same way, the chart even says where the probes are located, and the BF was not configured any differently.

You can postulate and bloviate all day long rocky, but the test results are real, accurate and above reproach. The test methods used at ETL are EXACTLY the same as used by UL for the last 100 years. They actually refer to UL72 for the testing protocols. The probe setup and calibrations are done based on the same standards, with the same bare probe configurations. That is how UL has done it since they started testing a century or more ago. The TCs are intentionally bare without a sink so they react to transients much more quickly. We are looking for immediate response, so when something happens it is observed real-time.

I am NOT going to educate competitors any more to defend the results. Every time you challenge something, I explain the physics, you shut up and go on to the next rant. That ends now. The thermal response in a gypsum board lined safe is very volatile. I'm not going to explain why any further. The BF demonstrates a clean stable curve BECAUSE it is a double-walled filled safe with highly engineered construction and fill materials. That's the point, and why it is so superior.

...sour grapes...

Good choice.  I do like Sturdy but you bought a nice RSC.

Congrats OP on the purchase. Glad to see you got the HD version. Most owners seem to be happy and I'm confident you will be too and if you aren't HOPEFULLY Amsec will make it right.

TSG, so you are saying that your test was conducted to UL72 standards? There are a few things missing if that's what you are saying.

I do have one point to retract which is when I said that you didn't include the worst temperature trace from your test verses your competitors because of what you posted from your test the worst case is represented so sorry about that; however, what doesn't make sense is if you say you are using UL 72 as a reference for test point placement why isn't there a minimum of 6 traces in your test? The UL test results should show a curve for top, bottom and all 4 sides or 6 test points minimum whereas your test shows 5 and with that 2 that say top?



Although this isn't a direct link to the standard, here are the test point locations defined by UL 72 as described on GunSafeGuyReviews website ( he offers an excellent unbiased point of view in my opinion.)

UL 72 Test Procedure



What does an actual UL 72 test look like for those who haven't seen one which I admit I haven't seen in person? Here's a video and screen shots from the European version which is identical to the UL 72 test. Photos show the thermocouple placement, note as GSGR said on his website that there are directly placed on each surface.

Chubbsafe Fire Endurance Test Video of Media Safe





It does appear that there may be a thermocouple in the upper left corner of the photo that is hanging out in the air. If that is the case then I'm very surprised UL is doing this because as mentioned previously so many factors would be able to impact results (I.e., by changing length of weld, type of the jacket insulation, length of contact area and pressure of the attachment points etc. etc.) Maybe that is ultimately what the problem is that the test hasn't been fully vetted for conditions out of the norm.

I saw that Sturdy Safe had purchased a BF for testing. I really was hoping that they would put their safe side by side with the BF and put them through an actual fire test to settle this debate. But, unfortunately after seeing one video where the bolt support framing was twisted up by a wrench in the 'Good verses Bad linkage Video' and then seeing many holes put in the side in another recent Ax Video, it appears that there won't be a fire test with this particular safe. Hopefully TSG they will buy another safe so a real world comparison of both designs can be done because your test and real world results of both designs don't seem to agree (I.e., their safe seems to do pretty well in a 90 minute burndown verses the numbers you are showing, over 350F in 9 minutes ... please .)

The erratic behavior of the test points in your competitors' safes shows that something is seriously wrong with your test. In addition to that, why don't the competitors safes using likely gypsum for fire protection show any deviation in temperature rise around the boiling point of water? There would not be superheated steam without a buildup in pressure and that won't happen without steam being present at atmospheric pressure within these gun safes first. Once again a word comes to mind ... shenanigans.

Again, you twisted my words and make assumption. I never said that we ran a strict UL72 program. I said we used the UL72 standard as a guideline, specifically with regards to the use of  bare TCs inside the safe, and the calibration of those TC's. Please stop interjecting details I have not specifically stated.  The test graph legend VERY CLEARLY says the probes were located 7" from the top, centered front to back and side to side. I believe I wrote that in my comments as well. I never represented the probe locations to be the same as those used by UL in Class 350 Testing. The temperatures on the walls are not where you store your goods, and it was decided early on to place all probes in the center of depth/width. so that various safes would not be unfairly measured by conduction and radiant heat incursions as the safes broke down. Measuring the air temperature in the center was considered to be the fairest of comparison by all in that decision. It is known that the drywall panels decay and then begin to conduct heat at a very high rate when dried out thru calcination. The idea was to measure the air temperature, not the worst case points in any safe as UL does in the Class 350 tests (corners, against walls and around the door jambs). ALL SAFES WERE INSTRUMENTED IDENTICALLY. The graphs all show the temperature of the TCs at the top of the safe, in every trace you see. I never published the lower probe temperatures, that data provides a lot of clues about what is happening in these safes, and we don't want to help our competitors with all the results, if they can even figure out which safes they made.



There was nothing "wrong" with the testing. You have no clue what you're looking at, and like I said, I am no longer discussing the details of the test results and divulging the cause and effect of all those blips and inflections. They are real, and all that erratic thermal behavior has explanation. The steam inflections are present in every safe that had drywall liners, you are just not finding that it matches the expected behavior, and there is very good reason for that. This information comes at a HUGE R&D price, and if you, or anyone else wants to understand all that data, open up your wallet, take a a few safes to ETL and test it yourself (several times). ETL has our test program on file, and has been authorized to use it for anyone that chooses to take a shot. They will get the same results, I assure you.

Don't you think, after two years, that some of the doubtful competitors have done this, and left learning that these tests are indeed genuine. Nobody has come out with any reporting to the contrary...hmmm, wonder why...

I'll tell you why, because the results we shared are 100% accurate... the challenge still stands. I can only hope that others test their safes and learn that the ratings they advertise are far from truth, and misleading to consumers. That was the whole point of this exercise, to bring some degree of standardization to fire ratings in the gunsafe industry. We set a high bar. It appears that they are not interested in honesty...

Thank you for your response. I do hear what your saying, but it all just seems moot.

What is your opinion of why Sturdy doesn't pay for an official test? They are relatively cheap for a business and would most definitely earn them more business than what they paid for it. All the theoretical physics will never beat out a proof of concept. Anecdotal evidence like pictures of safes from fires that we know nothing about, doesn't make for real proof.

So why do you think they don't have a REAL test out there?

I think ultimately for Sturdy the reason they don't do an official test is cost. According to GSGR's website the cost is now $60K for the UL fire endurance test and that test would only apply to safes +/- 50% of the tested capacity (I know that is a true statement because I spoke with a UL engineer years back who confirmed it.) Sturdy is a family owned company and $60K is a lot of money so for them would I believe having a UL placard on their safe make up the difference in sales? Probably not when considering the big players have much more to spend on advertising and also have the name recognition. And, I do believe real world results is what matters most of all when selecting a safe, don't believe what a manufacturer claims but listen instead to the customers that own the safe who can testify to the performance of the design when put to the test. The fact that Sturdy has customers with complete burndowns where the contents of their safes suffered no damage is very impressive in itself which you will have a very hard time finding another gun safe company that can make the claim. IMO putting a safe into a furnace, ramping up to 1200F and holding the same temperature for two hours means little for how it will perform in a real fire. If you look at the graph posted of all the temperature points in AMSEC BFs test notice that the 'top' thermocouple starts to increase at minute 5 whereas the other traces start increasing at minute 10 and the later does so in a linear manner verses the former's non-linear nature. The difference in the top curve verses the other curves is due to the additional radiant heat from an open burner ramping up the furnace to 1200F that the top of the furnace 'sees' and the other temperature points don't; after the temperature setpoint was reached the burners only need to momentarily fire to maintain setpoint (I.e., no more radiant heat impact.) I'm not trying to change your opinion on the RSC you just purchased, it is a pretty good one but it's sad to see AMSEC's smear campaign is working because for the same money Sturdy Safe is a far better safe than what you are purchasing in my opinion.

So post the rest of the results of the competitors' safes, you have them so what are you afraid of ... ? I know why you won't post them because everyone will see that your results are a bunch of BS when compared against your combined chart. Water doesn't boil at 300F or 350F when at atmospheric pressure which is the case in these gun safes. If the temperature spiked then dropped down to around 220F I might believe it but flattening out and holding around the same temperature shows a bias in your measurement aside from the noise. Subtract out the bias to put the temperature around 220-230F and now the results look pretty impressive compared to your design. Alas, once again more manufacture's biased propaganda on the tech forum to sell product.

... good try, but not taking the bait.

Let's just ask the question... when the ceramic fiber lined safe's wood interior parts started to steam off as it began to burn somewhere above 400 degrees, did the temperature drop to 212º? Nope. There was an inflection, and a leveling out for a short time. Just like all the other safes with late reactions... see, you are not using simple logic to understand what you see. Just because the steam is releasing, doesn't mean all the thermal "leaks" magically disappear. You figure it out from there...

I have opened burned safes from just about every manufacturer where the contents survived with little to no damage.  I have also opened safes from just about every manufacturer where the contents have been a total loss.

It's very easy to post photos of a burned safe with contents intact.  It's just as easy to post photos of burned safes where the contents were turned into ash.  Which photos do you think the various manufacturers tend to highlight?

Those photos are only evidence of something when those looking at them know what they're looking at.  It doesn't take a lot of burning to make a fire look bad.  In reality, two safes that look almost identical in a post burn condition may have been submitted to drastically different temperatures or length of burn.  I simply refer to it as "luck".  I've seen (and probably have photos) of cardboard shoe boxes tossed beneath a bed that survived horrific fires with their contents intact.  Because I can provide photographic evidence of that, should we propose that people keep their guns in cardboard boxes?  I have a picture that proves it works.




When I had considered manufacturing my own safes I had briefly looked into testing costs.  It wasn't that high.  Even if it was, that's not a lot of money as far as this industry is concerned.  If I could come up with it, so could any other manufacturer out there.




And that's why your opinion doesn't mean anything.     Because all of us who are really in the business, and really understand how these things work in real life, knows that it does mean something.  I will say that there is obviously a reason that gun safe manufacturers are testing at average temperatures, and not worst case scenario temperatures like UL does.

Hold on. First of all, no one even said it has to be UL rated. Are any RSC even UL rated? It can be any of the cheaper labs. The point is ANY halfway respectable lab would be better than what they currently have, which is nothing. IF I remember correctly, TSG said the total test cost them 30k and it was 10k for one safe. I might be wrong that it was him saying that, but I do remember those numbers thrown around somewhere when reffering to fire testing safes. I also fully disagree with you that its a family owned business so they don't have the money. Thats complete bull. Even 60k isn't alot of money for a business of this nature to protect it's reputation. As you mentioned, the "smear campaign" worked. It's been working for years now and they lost much more than even 60k in business. Dont forget, thats only the cost of 15 sales for them (or probably closer to 30 if talking profit). We aren't talking about a start up here. It's a company thats been open for 60 years and has 4 enormous warehouses. They have been doing well. At this point, the fact that it's family owned probably means more about them pocketing more of the profit, than anything else.

I also completely agree with you that lab tests do not equal real world results. The reality is that there isn't enough information to gather any real  data from real world results. Cherry picking burns means nothing (as another poster today pointed out about his experience). If there was an FBI database where they recorded the brand of the safe and the results on every fire in America. We might be able to start looking at trends. Otherwise, it's all just anecdotal evidence. That's why we have lab tests and standards. I don't know if my BF will last 2 hours in a real fire, but I am fairly confident it will last longer than the same safe that is rated at 1 hour (using the same lab tests).

Lastly, I recognize that at the end of the day, the reason they haven't released a test might just be because the owner is rich and happy with business. He simply doesn't care to. Thats GREAT, for him. I completely understand. But as a consumer that doesn't help sway my decision towards his product.

Anyone reading this thread, or any other place I post, knows that I am not selling anything. I am sharing my expertise and knowledge with this community, and doing that as a private party. I do not participate here in any way officially for the company.  I gain nothing by offering my experience, thoughts and opinions. I came here to learn more about firearms, and expand my knowledge so I could enjoy the sport more. I am here sharing what I know in return, paying back the benefits I enjoy.

As for the fire testing, this is no cake-walk. Fire testing of any kind is way more intense that you can imagine. Even the 1200º ETL test is brutal, and even after 28 years of doing this stuff, I am always impressed by how violent the response is to real fire exposure. Safes with poor door seals go up fast and never recover. In the graph posted, the one safe had a 2 hour manufacturer's rating. It failed in under 10 minutes, yet it had three (3) layers of gypsum. I could see that the seals were poorly engineered so they were not closing at all. The safe did exactly what I expected. Lots of drywall does not automatically equate to good fire resistance. Never-the-less, fire tests are intensely violent and lots of crazy things happen to a safe when it is abruptly exposed to temperatures this high. Thermal expansion of the metals, seal reactions, conduction of heat thru the metal structure in critical areas and a dozen other factors all influence the response in significant ways. For clarity, fire testing costs are high. A UL Class 350 test will cost around $45,000, more if you add the impact testing option. Testing at ETL is a lot more palatable, costing around $10,000 per test run. However, you never assume you will pass on the first try. Experience brings far more first test successes, but if you don't know much, you will be back at least once or twice to get a rating at either lab.

I have a question to Rockola.
You have been very adamant about this blanket insulation Sturdy uses in their safes not only here but at least one other forum I am still a member of but rarely visit anymore because of heavy moderation.
So the question is this.
Were you in anyway connected with the Sturdy Safe companies decision for using this blanket type of insulation??
You have, I am pretty sure, said you are an engineer and If I am incorrect with this then I apologize.
I have been curious about this for some time.

No I have absolutely no connection with Sturdy or had any influence in their choice for insulation. I'm in the metals industry and ceramic fiber insulation is commonplace because of the extreme heat and close proximity to people. I suppose that is one of the reason I found their company because they were employing the same heat/fire protection philosophy being used in industry so I knew it would work even if it did cost a little more.

Thank you for answering the question.

Wait a minute, you can't have it both ways. Both here and on your website you have been saying that your test is consistent with UL72 but now you are saying that's not the case? So where does the unbiased 3rd party testing come in and the manufacture's propaganda end? You have been implying that there is some sort of standard here when clearly there isn't based on what you have posted and what you are saying; you are just another manufacture posting cherry picked and highly suspect data that makes your safe look better than the competition.

Weren't you the guy whining here because AMSEC wouldn't pay for replacing the warped door on the AMSEC BF safe you had sold to a customer?

With all due respect, I think that illustrates how biased your witch hunt is. Frank is pretty far from being a AMSEC fan. I'm not a  fan either but you really seem to have some underlying motivation here or at the very least an ego that won't let you stop even though your expertise seems to be in another industry, not safes.

I'm not an expert on safes and i've seen a lot of pics in the forums consistent with what Frank claims and not consistent with what you claim, as far as burn down results. In fact, I thought it was common knowledge from the way it's talked about on the forums.

According to you, it's only one brand though that can survive a burn down. I find that questionable.

Looks like youve got the comparison done and you need to decide what you want