The holidays are a difficult time to get things done. I have been on vacation, so my efforts to get into this have not been as good as I would like. So many others are out too, so yes this may take a little time to get the story all laid out and see where the breakdown may have occurred. I will get to the bottom of this and let you know where it goes.

I can easily see how the photos would lead one to doubt the circumstances of the damage. In the limited photos provided here, it does not look like a defect to me, it looks like someone slammed the door VERY hard numerous times in a rage, or the safe was dropped on it's face. FYI, the concrete based fill does not expand, it contracts. It never expands, so the damage here is very curious and the cause is not immediately apparent. Clearly, the judgement of a customer service person is not vetted by everyone in the organization, and maybe a bad call was made. We will need more evidence to overturn the initial decision to call this a non-warranty situation. If this damage was not present at the time of delivery, caused by shipping handling, then it's clearly a fringe case and casts a good deal of doubt that this is a "defect" that was present in the construction that would be covered by any warranty. I'm sure you can understand that we can't be held responsible for everything a consumer may do after taking delivery and signing off. So, to be fair this investigation may require more evidence in the form of photos or other information gathering...

   Interesting thread and I hope the owner of the defective safe is taken care of.  Responses noted for my future safe purchase when I move.

concrete expands with temperature.  the approximate CTE is linked below.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html

you may have noticed those fiber strips placed in concrete highways and at the perimeter of your garage slab.

they are called, wait for it, "expansion strips".

ar-jedi

Both of which would have left other telltale signs which are absent from this safe.





Perhaps after it's cured.  We replicated a similar fill material, and it expands +/- 2 times its original pour.  That's why I had assumed that it may have generated some pressure inside the door cavity.

.... and the photos that would refute that conclusion are not here, so I only make that assessment based on the damage I can see. Like I said, there is much I can's see here to assess the cause. I would need close-up photos of the jambs, the back face of the door, and the areas around the door frame, as well as the back of the safe. Sorry, I was errant in saying "dropped on it's face". This damage could be caused from dropping the safe on it's back. I'll explain why....

I see a fairly clear chain of damage here, based on the limited forensic evidence. The Door Pan (filled with Drylite) is a fairly light sheet metal dish, made from 16 gauge steel. It is stitch-welded to the 1/2" Door Plate all around the perimeter. Now, look at how the Door Pan is crushed in the corner, causing the folded joint at the corner to buckle and open.  That also explains why the safe door was stuck and would not open. The crushing and buckling of the corner pushed the door seal into the perimeter of the Body Frame, locking the door in a closed position as Frank's testimony states. Note the corner of the Door Pan is not pushed away from the 1/2" door plate as the suggestion that expanding fill might move the materials. It is clearly compressed (crushed). This Door Pan lands on and touches the Body Jambs when the door is closed. Now look at the way the Bolt Guide Frame joint is fractured where it meets the inner door pan. The Bolt Guide Frame is heavy, made from 11 gauge steel, and also carrying the mass of the heavy boltwork. Now, for the Bolt Guide Frame to pull away from the Door Pan... and the door pan to be crushed... there is a logical conclusion that there was significant inertia like the safe falling on it's back or the door getting slammed very hard. These forces all explain all the damages I can see in the photos. The massive 1/2" door carries extraordinary inertia, and the door crashing into the jambs explain the crushed corner of the Door Pan as it strikes the Body Jambs. These inertial forces would also pull the Bolt Guide Frame away from the Door Pan... also very much expected from a significant impact of the door into the body frame, appearing as fractures in the paint where the Bolt Guide Frame meets (welded joint) the thinner Door Pan. Again, without a clear picture or inspection of any other surfaces to provide other confounding clues, the conclusion that the safe was dropped on it's back, or the door was slammed with great force is my best assessment.

Sorry if that makes me sound like an non supporting corporate beast, but that would be my conclusion given only the photos presented. It's not uncommon for a consumer to claim no knowledge when damages are found. Most of the time we take the hit and eat the loss. If this damage was found at the time of installation, no questions asked, new safe on the way. Shipping company get's a freight claim, everyone is happy.  But, for a safe that is bolted down, and a claim by the installer that this damage was not there when the safe was installed... we are left with only one logical conclusion... the consumer has slammed the door violently. (again, given the limited photographic evidence). I would more than welcome evidence to the contrary, and our company position may still make good on a warranty claim. But, unless other circumstances can be presented, this is not a warranty situation. That is my expert opinion, and I am highly experienced in the forensics of failure analysis. My opinion here will not change the course of action if we have already put a replacement safe in route. But, if I were asked what I think (I was not), this is my honest assessment given the limited photos shown.




We fill hundreds of safes every week. The damages seen here are definitely not from fill expansion. There is a very slight swelling immediately after the initial pour before the top is placed on the safe, then the fill begins a shrink as moisture is evacuated until the fill reaches stability within 24 hours of pouring. The formulation of these mixes are proprietary, so there is no way you could replicate that mix design. This is not an aluminum based reactive fill material, which does expand as you describe. These cementaceous mixes dry slowly, reaching a fully cured state after 28 days. After the initial chemical reactions at the time of pour, the fill is never growing with any measurable significance. Temperature swings and fill expansion do not play a role here, I assure you. A safe that is filled will never reach a consumer in less that 3 weeks or so, since that is our build cycle time. By the time a safe reaches a consumer, I assure you that the fill is very nearly fully cured except maybe for a local California will-call pickup immediately after manufacturing cycle. Moreover, we have NEVER seen a fill expansion damage claim on any type of filled safe in my 28 years at AMSEC. It simply never happens.

Wow.....

TSG ,at this point I would assume you would go on the decision of the safe retailer/installer that inspected the safe,because as you stated you may not have all the details in the photos supplied.i would think that even going a step further you would send a shipping label and have the safe returned to the factory for inspection.or fly a engineer out to meet the dealer and customer for inspection.we deal with factory issues all the time in my business and this is how things are handled by Big companies.
The only way to have all the facts is to inspect the safe onsite or have it returned to the factory.of course I would think that a inspection of a dealer of ab1's experience would also hold some weight,he is not a Costco enployee.

Hope this gets resolved as I think amsec makes a great product

Pete

That is definitely not how the average large company handles warranty claims. I'm an exclusive dealer for several multi billion dollar conglomerates. The largest one grosses over 20 billion per year.

If they relied on the dealer they would be bankrupt and destitute. Most dealers are not Frank. I regularly have customers turn in parts for warranty that they swear are under the 1 year warranty. We then find out they failed from neglect (lack of oil lets say or water damage) and are years old.

Just last month I had a customer send me 10 circuit boards (1800 bucks each) for warranty. In the box I found an invoice from 2002, from another dealer, and these were knockoff boards from china, not genuine.

I haven't met a company yet that will pay the freight, or more than half of it.

The companies shouldn't have to chase down facts. On all of ours we are required to send in the part, documentation about the install and use, and if it is very large or heavy then we send in detailed pictures so they can make a decision.

I'm not saying you are lying about your situation. I'm saying it's very very uncommon and almost unheard of now as manufacturers have continued to streamline their operations and chase margin.

One of our companies used to do that. They changed to a more documented process now and don't trust dealers. They only evaluate facts. The head of warranties told me their warranty cost went down 85% overnight when they started evaluating failures. He said they get atleast one $5,000 gearbox a day that comes through and is atleast 5 years out of the 1 year warranty.

I look forward to seeing what becomes of this. I'm often in franks situation. I've taken some large hits over the years when I had to stand behind something that the manufacturer unjustly would not stand behind. One of them was 98k bucks alone and I had written approval for the warranty. But I also understand the manufacturers dilemma as we have started manufacturing a piece of equipment and warranty is already a slight issue.

UPDATE: Frank sent me a PM and he has confirmed that AMSEC is indeed shipping out a replacement safe.

I'm fine with that decision, and I would never consider breaking down an act of goodwill to promote customer satisfaction. Like I said, we usually honor warranty claims when there is doubt or the evidence does not support a claim, all in the spirit of maintaining a premium reputation in the marketplace. I can tell you that we categorize our warranty statistics and study these reports every month, and "Customer Goodwill" is one of those categories. That classification of claims is substantial, and we consider it a necessary expense.

I want to repeat my past pledge to the readers here... I will provide honest and candid thoughts on issues. I realize those commentaries may not always be popular, and maybe even controversial. I am speaking as an individual, not an ambassador for the company I work for. Customer goodwill is a necessary part of doing business, and I never stand in the way of those choices. The relationship with our dealers and distributors is not part of what I do, that is left to our Sales and Service teams. My role is technical, and I do not screen the evidence on warranty claims unless asked to do so. In this case, someone has made the decision to honor this claim, and that's fine with me. I'm glad there will be another satisfied customer out there singing praises.  

To be fair, you're right.  I can't.  I know very little when it comes to the science behind some of this stuff.

However, we had a client that had us install one of your doors in a unique application.  He wanted to replicate the fill for use as part of that application.  As luck would have it, he is some sort of fancy concrete engineer that had a full lab at his disposal.  They took a sample, analyzed it, and what they came up with looked identical (and I'm assuming was identical at a scientific level) to the sample removed from the door.  We ended up making a few panels using their concoction as the fill.

I still have a few of the test cylinders that they made around here somewhere.

Well that about ends that discussion. I know from what little I have messed with concrete it does expand and contract not only at the time of pour but throughout its life when exposed to the elements. Now the stuff inside these safes isn't directly exposed to water or sun but it's still exposed to some moisture depending on where the safe is located. How much that moisture would effect this " special mix " of concrete is beyond me. However I would suspect that any shrinking or expanding of the mix, at all, after it's been poured to a completely full state inside the walls of the safe would later have some form of impact on the steel that surrounds it.

Again I could be wrong but regardless there was too much sidestepping on covering the safe in question. Companies nowadays do more work trying to get out of a warrenty than they would do just covering the product. Especially in cases where it's almost obvious it was the manufacturers fault. You don't pay for these safes just for the safe you pay for the service that comes with it. That shouldn't include having to track down a receipt, take dozens of pictures, send dozens of emails, wait weeks, after one of your dealers(who in most instances has to have training from the manufacturer there selling safes for) says that this safe in question clearly has a manufacturer defect.

If I was Frank I wouldn't sell another customer an American Security safe again. Knowing there going to give my customers shit on every warrenty issue.

double tap.

After following this thread for a while I will look elsewhere for my next safe. I was set to buy from AMSEC. Not now. I will not give money to a company that does not trust its dealers, installers, nor its customers. Knowing that I will have an uphill battle for any issue that may develop is unsettling and I will avoid that like the plague. Might be a fine product but customer (and dealer) support overrides whatever slight increase in quality I might get from the product. I'm glad Frank and his customer will get a new safe. But I'm not going to be the next sucker that has to deal with this kind of treatment. YMMV.

The safe has a clearly defined 1 year warranty. That's one of the reasons I went with FT Knox over Amsec. Safe issues are rare but nearly always expensive. I'd prefer them to bake another $50 in the safe so that if a 1/1000 situation comes up it's not my responsibility.

Guess nobody read the part where a new safe is in transit....

I am sure they read it but being rational is not something that the members of arfcom are exactly known for

My BF6030 is 8 years old now and I looked it over after this thread.  I don't see how the fill could possibly expand enough to cause the damage that the safe in question displays though.  Temperature shouldn't be a cause as I highly doubt the safe was placed somewhere that the temperatures could fluctuate more than a few degrees.  My basement never changes more than 5F all year long.

IMO more than a fair outcome - I read your assessment and can see what you are talking about. from the pictures I agree that it is plausible for that damage to have occurred other ways. At minimum I would have expected them to provide follow up photos that you need to better assess.

I also do not think saying this should be shipped on AMSEC's dime is appropriate either- when your car needs a warranty repair do they come to your house and pick it up? and thats with zero cost and in the same city. Maybe the Distributer should be the middle man to go check it out......


All in everyone got what they wanted so super event though with the info presented it could have gone either way.

I am also willing to bet that anyone on this page if it was their personal money in a company that would be responsible for  uninstall and shipping costs with the possibility of it really being the consumers fault would have handled it the same way. Shit shipping and uninstall alone would have probably been close to what AMSEC has in the thing LOL

I read the whole thread and I'm glad a reasonable ending was had. Warranted or not, I think the main issue for me here was that a rep initially okayed the new safe. Dealer and consumer were told a new one was on the way...week later, no safe and no communication.  They touch base with company CS and are now told no replacement will be sent. Again with no prior coms... That's not what you want in your CS as a company. Sure if the warranty claim was later denied pending further investigation then by all means investigate, but let the people expecting a new safe know about it.

Goodwill, not warranty. Big difference.

Way to step up AMSEC

My BF 6636 is now six years old and I could not be happier.
Rock solid.

I was told the decision to replace the safe never went back and forth on our end. That confusion may have been on the distributor side. Truth be know, I think the distributor okay-ed the replacement before they ever contacted AMSEC, and they didn't call us in on the deal for a while...

I didn't present the supporting information, but the coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete is 0.0000055 inches per inch per degree F. Our proprietary fill alpha is not very different from standard concrete. That means that with a 100 degree rise, one foot of concrete should expand around 0.006 inches (6 thousands).

Yes, you do see expansion joints in the freeway, but consider the distance being 15 feet between expansion joints. With that distance you would see about a 3/16 inch expansion with a 100 degree swing, so you can see that expansion joints are necessary in long slabs. The thickness of the filler material at the point in question is about 3/4 inch, you do the math.    

I can tell you we took a significant loss on this deal. The outbound shipping cost in excess of $150. The returned safe shipping will cost that much again. Install probably cost at least $150. The returned safe can't be repaired to like-new condition, so it will be sold to an employee as-is for 30% of the dealer cost. So, in all the losses were pretty big. The margins on gunsafes are relatively small, so my rough estimate is that we have to sell a dozen or more similar safes to pay for this one warranty case... and we do this all the time. Our goodwill warranty category frequently exceeds $15,000 per month. Building and keeping a good reputation is expensive.

Good one.

Can you not see that Frank is completely fed up with AMSEC and their lack of support not only with this incident but also their indifference for years prior?  Even thesafeguy admits there is a lot of disconnect within the company.  Why would I knownly support this?  Personally, I'll take my chances elsewhere.

I am glad you're happy with your AMSEC purchase. I'm happy with the safes I have (not AMSEC). In the not so distant future I will need another and I will spend my money with a company that builds a quality product and that will support me and my dealer if things go wrong without a ton of grief. YMMV.

The customer CC'd me on his communication with AMSEC customer service.  I have copies of every communication.  How I described the events are exactly how they occured.  AMSEC requested information, said that the safe would be replaced, and asked for our shipping address.  When the safe had not arrived, the customer contacted them again, and he was told the safe would not be covered because it was "pried open".

I did not get the distributor involved before that point.  Once the distributor was involved, we were again told that a replacement was being shipped.  That was December 14.  It has yet to arrive, and I have not been provided with any tracking or shipping information.  For a second time, the distributor has asked AMSEC if they can simply send a safe out of their inventory.  To my knowledge, they have yet to receive a response.  They tend to be on the ball, and keep me in the loop every time we have any dealings between us.

The initial warranty claim was made on September 16, 2015.






Thank goodness that everybody uses e-mail in the modern world.  No need to assume who did what and when when there are e-mails showing dates, times, and people involved.  

Had my distributor OK'd the replacement, I would have had the safe weeks ago, because they would have just tossed one on a truck and sent it to us.  They have a pretty good track record of doing exactly what they say.






Luckily AMSEC will save these cost thanks to yours truly.  


Here's the good news.  Contrary to my better judgement, I have sold AMSEC products for over 10 years.  A lot of them.  Even without stocking them, advertising them, or pushing them, I'm sure we're well into the mid six figures in wholesale dollars.  Of all of those safes, this is the only one to ever have a major issue.  We have had a few minor issues, but that's the nice thing about us.  No need to call an 800 number and deal with a person several states away.  We stand behind what we sell personally, and all of those issues are taken care of at our expense.  I even offered to replace this safe at my expense if necessary.

So despite this one hiccup, I don't have a problem with the safes that AMSEC makes.  I've had very good luck with them.  Can't say I'm fond of the rest of their business, but the products are (generally) sound.

Definitely wasn't knocking what you did - I think you were more than fair and you just proved my earlier point of why AMSEC shouldn't be required to pay to have it moved to inspect it for warranty.

Congrats AMSEC for doing the right thing by this customer. TSG I know your company is a big one relative to the safe construction world but $15,000/month to cover warranty claims seems high especially when many of your products show only a 1 year warranty. I do know there are a few of your competitors who have lifetime warranties so it makes me wonder what their budget is for warranty claims relative to yours based on overall sales.

All this reminds me of the one Sturdy Safe complaint I saw on this site where a customer received a safe from them that he thought was too difficult to open which Sturdy ended up replacing with much less grief relative to these two recent AMSEC BF complaints on this site. Most of us owners of Sturdy Safes knew that the tight opening action is due to the clamping of the bolts against the door jamb which is necessary to ensure an air tight seal; the opening action does improves with use so it seemed outrageous to me at least that Sturdy replaced a safe because this particular customer's a wimp.

The $15,000/month budget for warranty claims with such small margins on sales also makes me wonder why there is such a generous budget allocated for purchasing competitors' safes, testing those safes to non-industry accepted standards and producing defamatory publications based on that testing where the competitors didn't even have access to all the testing data or the setup criteria. In the 10 years or so I've been interested in this market I've realized that there are many manufactures to stay clear of and AMSEC has become one of them to me which I"m sure AMSEC, TSG or the AMSEC "fanboys" could care less about ("fanboys" is a term I first heard here when I was called a Sturdy Safe "fanboy" which I'm okay with so hope they are as well) .  

I dont have a pony in this race but his post clearly says "goodwill warranty" which you changed to total warranty claims to help make your point, not just goodwill which is deceiving on your part.

What you seem to be complaining about is r/d and advertising, which is common these days.

Im the same way though, i hate fluffy advertising. Like the safe (think it was liberty) that is shown as surviving a drop test when a drop test has nothing to do with the safes purpose. Or the ford commercial where they show that a bed bolt is strong enough to hang the pickup from a cable, even when bed bolt strength has never been an issue in the history of mankind.

Unfortunately, what i see with amsec seems to be brand strength, plain and simple. Its in all industries. The top brands with the highest brand value can basically say "take it or leave it" and it doesnt matter bc the average laymen doesnt ever see that. Their brand is strong enough it doesnt hurt them as much as the purists like to gnash their teeth about.

In the end though, its asinine to suggest that a company (any company) should allow the competition to refute the tests they use for advertising. They dont use industry standard tests bc its cheaper and impossible to duplicate or quantify. If they went and had a ul test done on every single one, it would cost a fortune and might not show nearly as large of a gap in performance.

The large conglomerate that im a dealer for does the same. They will not directly compare products in any way that might get them sued. They always do it vaguely or compare it to a control subject, then claim its better than the competition even though the test just proved it is better than the control, the baseline, not the competition.

I guess what im saying is although i agree with you, its not necessarily the player that is bad, its the game. That life these days. Appeal to the lowest common denominator. The person that doesnt think objectively.

The type of person that says "hey this commercial says its up to 36% stronger, zomg im gonna buy it" but when you ask them "up to 36% stronger than what?" their eyes glaze over and they don't understand the question. They also dont understand how vague the words "up to" are either.

To be clear regarding the competitive fire testing comparison we shared, assuming you have not followed the threads on that issue... First, there is no industry standard. Second, it is our intent to establish a standard, so there is an even playing field by which the consumer can make comparisons. It's that lack of a standard that brings all the debate about performance comparisons and outrageous claims by some manufacturers. In that endeavor, we openly published the testing criteria, named the lab that does the testing at a reasonable cost, and authorized that lab to share those testing specifications with anyone that wanted to come in and find out independently how their respective products perform under these "generally accepted' conditions. To my knowledge, after more than a year, nobody has come back to refute the comparative results we shared with the market. That's because we did this all above board, without any cheating or intentional alterations to any safes tested. Anyone that may have come to challenge the results probably found the exact same results we published, and faced redesign and further testing to bring their products up to par. We have re-tested identical safe models (our own) on separate occasions and found very consistent results. Repeatability is not in question, and the lab knows that.

The response wasn't made towards me but it does seem to be related to my previous post so I feel the need to opine. I'm not in the industry but I do believe the industry accepted standard for fire testing fire protection equipment such as safes is UL 72 which IMO should be the starting point for any manufacture to use when testing their own or competitors' products. Now if your particular equipment doesn't respond well to the heat load of a full ASTM E119 temperature test curve which instead requires you to use a watered down constant 1200F temp level instead to get a decent time rating or if the 30 Ft drop test required by the standard is too much of an impact to keep the seal of your safe from being compromised or if the furnace cool down period where most safes fail also is too much for your safe to handle before going overtemp then maybe your company shouldn't be testing your competitors' safes nor I believe should you be creating self serving standards where you are able to pass testing and others are not. Just my 2 cents for all it's worth.

I do remember that thread now that you mention it. It doesn't change the fact thats its not industry standard even though amsec is trying to make it that. If its open to other manufacturers then that is better than most.

And thats not a bad thing. Ive never seen amsec marketing that i felt was dishonest. Self serving maybe, thats the nature of advertising.

I see rockolas point but i think his disdain is misguided is all im saying. I always ask myself how people fall for advertising and why companies spend so much on it. It cant generate that much of a return.

Then i see people go gaga over a vendor giving out a free replacement on an item that likely has a 70% margin like a reloading press part or cutting them a special "ar15.com" deal. People are gullible. It appears that rockola and i are 2 peas in a pod in that aspect. I like to look at things objectively when i can.

My distributor contacted me today to tell me that they will be sending me a safe out of their inventory, approved by AMSEC.   Once I get them swapped out I can get some better photos and measurements to help determine the cause.

As far as Rockola's problem goes, AMSEC has the solution.  They make safes with the very rating he's demanding.  Sturdy doesn't.  None of these other gun safe manufacturers do.  AMSEC does.  

So what's the complaint?  That there shouldn't be different ratings that cover different situations?  Because that's the way the current system, that he's referencing for fire testing, works.  They have different exposure temperatures, for different lengths of time, restricted to different internal temperatures depending on the type of rating one needs for their particular purpose.  Same holds true with burglary ratings.  Different lengths of time against different categories of tools.

You see, safes are just like tools.  Different tools are made to do different jobs.  Gun safes don't need to meet data safe requirements, because if you need to store data, you should buy a data safe.  So AMSEC is interested in a new standard for gun safes?  Isn't that better than the current method that has no standards at all?

Absolutely. Hard to have a fair fight with no rules.

I would love to have standard testing rules as well.  It would separate the "wheat from the chaff" and stop all of the "My X is better than your X because I say so." BS.

UL Class 350 Fire safes are very complex and expensive to build. They are very dependent on scale too. The larger a safe is, the more design complexities and labor goes into the product. A large gunsafe sized firesafe with a UL Class 350 1-Hour rating would probably cost 3-4 times a conventional drywall lined safe. We went down that path once in the late 90's with our LX Gunsafe line. We actually developed a new UL Gunsafe Standard, which ran 30 minutes on the ASTM E119 curve to 1550 ºF. The safe was expensive, and after 2 years, the volume never met our production goals. No other manufacturers pursued the listing. You can't support a product that only sells a dozen per month. It died, simply because the consumer did not appreciate the value and the dealers were not willing or able to up-sell to better products. Gunsafes are placed in sporting goods stores in most cases, and the safe expertise in that selling environment is very weak. Most of the high-end safes are sold by safe dealers and locksmiths.

The replacement safe arrived on Monday, and due to the weather, we just got around to getting it delivered today.  I didn't take any photos of the new safe, because it looked just like a new safe is supposed to.  The defective safe is at one of our non-heated warehouses.  If it warms up a bit later this week I may run by and take a bunch of additional photos.

NVM

After reading this complete thread. I am damn glad I did not spend my $13k on a AMSEC RFX. The way this was handled is disgraceful in my eyes. And TSG seems to talk a good story but goes silent when information is not in AMSEC favor. He never did comment on the redundant lock misinformation he's been pedaling on this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_46/456861_.html&page=1

Frank on the other hand seems to be a real stand up guy. I would have done well to buy from him and will next time.

Not sure how you classify an act of goodwill disgraceful on a 3-year-old safe that probably cost AMSEC $2500 or more, on a case that is pretty clearly not a warranty or a burglary... quite the opposite in my mind.

...on the lock thing, I am only sharing what I know, an I have no reason to knock Kaba-Mas. We sell their locks every day on safes. I don't see how you think that was misinformation. I have nothing to gain by that. I am at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas all this week. I'll pull one of the 6441 locks in question next week and look at the labels on the lock. If it's now sporting a Group 1 label, that's great. I know Orlando, and he knows his products, so I doubt he is wrong.

I own an AMSEC now for 15 years and for what I paid it is fine. But it was time to upgrade to a real safe and I'm  glad I did not buy a high security AMSEC model with any expectations of truth or integrity from the company.

What I find disgraceful is how AMSEC only responded in "good will" when they were called out in public forum and shamed into it by the pleading of a very reputable, but neglected dealer..



On the lock thing you were not sharing what you know, but rather what you thought. It was stated as fact, that a safe cannot have a 6441 lock and a  TL-30 label. You never admitted that the whole UL TL dust up was related to AMSEC's very deceptive practice of  pairing a cheapo Lock Duo with a clearly branded LaGard key entry. If AMSEC had put the 6441 on it would have passed UL TL. But then again AMSEC would not have made much money, as the 6441 is a very expensive lock.

To get the truth I went directly to the manufacturer Kaba Mas and got the final word. I'm not interested in any more of your "opinions" on safe information as you have proved to be both ignorant and deceptive . It is clear that in spite of what you think you are no expert. Only an AMSEC shill. I'm damn glad I spent my money with Brown Safe. BTW they have a 50 year warranty that extends to the lock. No way AMSEC can compete with that.

What you guys need to realize is that its not TheSafeGuys job to be arfcoms personal customer service rep nor does he make every decision that happens at his company. As someone who is safe shopping, I greatly appreciate the fact that he has taken the time to bring his knowledge to this forum.

No shit.
There has been an unnecessary sharp edge here.

I'm sure Frank (a1) would be happy to clear that up. The decision to replace the safe was made before I got involved in late December. I am told the wholesaler in the middle was slow to get the order out due to the holiday madness and other challenges. This forum "shame" thread had nothing to do with the decision to replace this safe. Our service policies and actions are in no way influenced by online discussions. I didn't even bring this up with the Service Manager until all the corrective actions were already in play. As far as I'm concerned, the end user should be pleased with the outcome. It should be noted that some degree of confusion was caused by having three different people calling AMSEC to resolve the issue, the End User, the Wholesaler and Frank. It is highly irregular to have multiple contacts all working their own angle and not communicating between themselves. I was told the wholesaler was authorized to replace the safe way back in mid December. Sorry this wasn't resolved more quickly. These things take time, and occasionally get stalled for various reasons. If the haters want to use that, let the shit fly. AMSEC went over the line to satisfy a customer and that's the bottom line, and it had nothing to do with this this thread.

As for the lock debate, I related what I KNOW. If what I knew was wrong, I apologize. I am very sure that the last time this came up, the lock I had in hand did not have a Group 1 label. I assure you sharing that observation was not some act of deception. I have no motives to mislead anyone on that matter.

Caveat emptor...  **** Edited by TheGrayMan *****

Damn guy.

Now its Group 2M.... which is it Group 2, Group 2M or Group 1 ?



How long does it take to look at a sticker? These posts are over a year old

https://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=6&f=46&t=401046&page=68

* edited by TheGrayMan*

Like I said earlier. TSG is conflating the problems AMSEC had trying to substitute cheapo NL Lock Duo on UL TL safes. When they got busted they had to supply genuine LaGard 6441. ********** Edited by TheGrayMan ************





http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_46/401046_.html&r=-1&page=36

Fair enough..... but the truth is in the above posts. No less that 4 times conflicting information was willfully posted...

"Willfully posted"? Seriously? TSG has posted more detailed information about safe and lock design, manufacturing and testing then any other safe company rep/designer/inventor period. It's not even close.

I see that you have read some threads on the internet and are now a very experienced safe expert. Allow me to help you out. The confusion about the LA GARD 6441's Group 1 rating revolves around the lack of the "Group 1" mark on the lock itself. This was as recent as a year or so ago. There was only the "Type 1" mark.  I don't know if they're shipping them now with the Group 1 label or not.

In addition, the 6441 is NOT listed in the UL certifications database under "Group 1": UL You will notice that it is listed under "Type 1".

Now, add to that the fact that the lock was discontinued and then put back on the market and there you have it.

So all in all, TSG has plenty of credibility from 25+ years of successful safe design and manufacturing, plus the pages and pages of detailed information he has provided to this forum.

Yes, I believe it is still a "Group 1" lock (even though it would certainly not pass a Group 1 test today, not even a Group 2m) and Brown makes a quality safe, but calm down with the vitriol. If you want to blame anyone, blame Kaba Mas for not putting the "Group 1" label on the lock to begin with.

On the lifetime warranty thing, I had no idea people didn't realize that they were paying for the cost of that warranty upfront. Compare a safe with a 1 year warranty apples to apples to one with a longer warranty. Almost every time, you will pay more for the safe with the longer warranty. Consider that extra cost a "Lifetime Warranty Fee". Me personally, do I prefer the longer warranty and am I willing to pay for it? Yes, but not everyone is willing to pay more for it.