I'm in the market for my first high end safe. And, while I'd like to go all in on a TL30x6, I'm confused (or dissapointed) in the UL's TL rating system.

So, to my understanding, a TL-15 is resistant to attack with most any common tool for 15 minutes. But, this only applies to an attack on the door. A TL-30 is, or theoretically could be, the exact same safe with a better door, since it needs to resist attack by the same tools for 30 minutes. But, we're still only attacking the door. It isn't until you get up into the X6 safes that they rate the walls of the safes.

So, I can't decide where I stand on this testing methodology. 

On one hand, my nieve side wants to assume that the door of a TL-15 or TL-30 is the weak point of the safe, so the lack of wall testing is irrelevant.

My skeptical side says that a TL-15 or TL-30 safe could go all common core and be built "for the test". I.E. strong door and weak(er) body. This way of thinking necessitates the need for and X6 rating. The videos I've seen of UL testing is when the safe is standing upright and the guys are basically trying to cut, smash, or saw their way into the face of the door. I've not seen much prying with long crowbars, or anything like that.
I guess what it comes down to (and I'm no safe expert, obviously) is: I don't see the point of TL-15 or 30 testing if all it does is attack the door.

@TheSafeGuy

@a1abdj

Read through this entire thread.
Ask the safe guy

It will answer 95% of your questions. If you still have questions about buying a TL rated safe, I would send a PM to Frank (a1abdj).

Only one point of clarification - take TL-15 as an example.  It is not start the clock then Jim Bob and Cleatus have 15 minutes to open it using whatever tools they can find.

It is XX minutes of precisely stopwatched only tool on work time, from a couple guys who know how to break into safes, using just the right tool in the right spot; and the safe being able to resist that, until 15, 30 or more minutes have passed.

It should also be noted that the engineers working on these safes have the FULL schematics for each safe, which no one else would have access too. So they know the EXACT places to attack to get into the safe as quickly as possible. They also do this every single day, with an unlimited supply of cutting bits/blades/saws, etc.

I see where you're coming from 100%. I'm aware of that part of the test, and how the timing works. But that still doesn't tell me how robust the body of the safe is. 

The bodies must meet minimum requirements.  Thesafeguy will know the full specifics, since he as a manufacturer owns a copy of the UL standards.  

A steel plate TL-15 using A36 steel would have a 1.5" solid plate door, and a 1" solid plate body.  I believe Thesafeguy summed it up once upon a time by saying that the bodies on these safes were essentially a "TL-10".   Although composite safes are not solid steel their bodies must still be comparable in strength.

I cut through the back of mine, posted a thread on here a good while back.  It took several hours.

Sorry I missed this thread, been busy with surgical recovery...

So, the body of the TL-15 and TL-30 are subject to the same test at UL. That's a strange thing, considering the TL-30 should be twice the safe. But, it's actually the other way around. The TL-15 is subject to body attacks using the TL-30 tool complement and methods. I have proposed a review of that issue with the UL Standards Technical Panels, but to no avail yet.

So,, some time in the distant past, the UL687 standard was published. At the time, plate safes were the norm, and composite safes were usually just compliant plate safes wrapped in a cladding filled with concrete. In the late 80's, when the cost of steel started to skyrocket, the pressure to come up with lower cost construction drove manufactures to seek alternatives. UL had to accommodate these with some kind of "equivalency" test. As is still the case today, a TL-15/30 safe is allowed to be built from 1-inch thick ASTM A36 steel (50ksi tensile strength min) without being subject to test. They ran a test (when is not clear, but I believe it was mid-80's) with the TL-30 tool complement of the time and decided from that test that it took 8 minutes to open the 6-square-inch opening in 1" steel. That became the benchmark for "equivalency " testing. Hence, until the late 90's a body made from any construction that didn't include 1" 50ksi steel was tested with TL-30 tools for 8 minutes.  After a lot of heat, namely from yours truly, the issue of the TL-30 tool complement growing to be far more effective over the years, they re-ran the test and dropped the equivalency to 5 minutes. That is the standard today.

Bottom line is that the TL-15 composite/alternate body is subject to 5 minutes using the TL-30 tool complement. As mentioned, this is a formidable test where the clock is only ticking while tools are on the test specimen, and the team has all knowledge of construction and materials. It may seem trivial, but that 5 minute test can take up to 2 hours or more. They can attack as many 5 minute tests as they like, from any direction, edge, corner or surface. They can try as many different tool mixed approaches as they like. If they don't like the method they are working, they can (and will) stop the test, select a new path and start the test over again. The truth is that every re-test cycle (7 years), they raise the bar and construction is forced to be improved.