Anyone seen one of these yet?

https://www.cesafes.com/fort-knox-m4

I've always kind of liked what the M2 line offers.  Pretty thick steel and a decent fire rating without all the flashy paint and pin striping.  Well, it looks like CE has stepped it up a notch with the M4 line.  These should be pretty similar to some of the Graffunder safes at least on paper.

Wonder what the bolt work looks like.

Just a guess but I assume the bolt work is pretty basic with a fairly minimal number of bolts. Also I'd be surprised if the door has any sort of glass or cable secondary fail safe.

Unfortunately too heavy to go into most homes that aren't on a slab.

Should be lighter than a big TL15 or 30?

Yes, which is all the more reason to go with the heavier safe at that point.

You're generally safe to go +/- 1,500 pounds worth of safe on a typical residential floor.  Anything over that and you're better off staying on concrete which generally has no weight limit as far as most safes go.  If you've got no limit on weight, why not go with the heavier safe for the same (or less) money?

Heavier safes will be limited to homes on slabs, accessible walk out basements, or garages.  These manufacturers walk a line, as once you get too heavy you're eliminating most of your buyers.

I am going to guess that the M4 in a 7241 is going to have quite a bit more storage capacity than a TL with similar exterior dimensions.

Do we know how a solid half inch plate (and an inch thick door) will compare in security to a TL rating?  I guess that would be C rated but that appears to be just a build spec as opposed to a burglary rating.

It's a bit more complicated than this, but essentially with regular A36 steel plate, a C rate would have a 1/2" body with 1" door, and a TL-15 would have a 1" body with a 1.5" door.

There are very large TL rated safes out there  

I know there are some door and lockwork stuff that goes into the TL ratings that aren't part of the C ratings.

Maybe CE/Ft Knox needs to submit the M3/M4 to UL for an RSCII test.

I suspect they would have a decent shot at getting that rating.  As it stands, to my knowledge, AMSEC has been the only company to do so with the BFII.

I'm not a fan of the old RSC rating system, and although they attempted to "make it better" I think they actually made it worse.  I don't hold the lack of a RSC rating against any manufacturer.

Made it worse? Can you explain? I thought the RSCII was basically a TL10 rating?

My thing with the original RSC rating  how vague it is. By this I mean that an AMSEC BF or Ft Knox Titan gets the same security rating as a budget Canon sold at Costco or the cheap imported Browning at the sporting goods store.

Indeed.  The jump between RSC and RSCII is vast missing several other levels of security, while the RSCIII is well beyond residential territory and already covered by their commercial rating system.

My opinion, they should have relied on the commercial ratings for high security safes.  They could have split the RSC levels for those areas below TL levels and perhaps added a tamper rating.

Ah. I see.

As I understand the old rating; in order for a safe to be rated as an RSC it had to withstand a 5 minute test on the door and jamb with one man using simple hand tools.  A drill was used but no powered cutter or grinder. It also specified that the safe body must be at least 12g although there was no attack test on the body.

The RSCII, which I've only seen in brief parts, says the attack time is now 10 minutes and with two men.  Tools for the test are the same as for TL15 test. I assume the new specification includes construction minimums just like the basic rating. Is that right?

Maybe an RSCX6 or TL10X6 or some rating like that would make more sense in the day and age of portable cutting tools.

The problem is that your average residential burglary does not involve cutting tools.  Residential burglaries as a pure statistic are not that common.  Attacks on safes within those burglarized homes are even less common.  When we do see a dedicated safe attack within a home it's generally a targeted attack whereas most residential burglaries are of the smash and grab variety.

You shouldn't be able to open a "safe" with a claw hammer and a screw driver, but unfortunately "safes" that can be opened in this manner exist.  This is why the RSC label came into being.  But there's a big gap between that claw hammer / screw driver and portable cutting tools that the new system doesn't really address.

In my world there would be a tamper rating that covers bouncing, paper clips, and other non-destructive means of opening.  This could cover any product that is designed to house firearms.  Small locking boxes up to safe size units.

The RSC label could have remained exactly what it was.  Small tools, short window of time.

The RSCII should have become a RSS (residential security safe) and could have expanded to cover larger tools with a longer window of time.  Possibly a RSS1 and RSS2.

UL already has ratings that cover power tools, so there's really no need for the RSC category to venture into that arena.  You can buy TL-15 and TL-30 gun safes.

I own an M2 and it's an awesome value. A lot of steel and not a lot of fluff. The M4 is a serious piece. They do a good job on these.
The recessed door is a nice feature, and it still swings open well past 90*, close to 180*

At 1/2'' plate body and 1'' door, that M4 is a beast! My M2 probably looks like a tin can next to an M4.

Yeah. Pretty impressive and probably a good value.

As I've said, I've always liked the M2. I don't own one but if and when I need another safe that's likely what I'll get. Or maybe an M3.

The M2 takes what everybody likes about brands such as Sturdy (thick steel and simplicity) but uses what's arguably a better fire lining. Price for the M2 vs the standard Sturdy is also pretty close. In fact the M2 might be a little less money after you pay for the insulated wool Sturdy uses.