what we have learned so far:

UL is not trustworthy
TL ratings mean F all
country of origin tags are a good indicator

@ The Safe Guy:  Would a Liberty Safe purchased in 1999 be US manufactured?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, I believe so. The rush to importing low-end gunsafes really started to get momentum in 2002 thru 2004. Liberty was the first to bring in most of their line as i recall, but that was well after 1999. After the Clinton Administration opened the door for Chinese imports in 1998, the first waves of products were terrible, and the Made in the USA fever was really at full swing after 9-11. It took a while for those little guys to get their act together and displace domestic production. The successful Chinese companies were managed by guys that came to the US for their education. That gave them the edge to understand our culture.

Regardless of the rating, whether it was falsified, or how long it took someone to get in the lesson here is.

A safe is only a deterrent, like your front door, if someone wants in, they will get in.  

A safe is an important part of protecting your stuff but it doesn't stand alone.  You need an alarm and insurance to go with the safe.  Surveillance cams would be nice too.

Ponch,

Before you finish destroying the safe and disposing of it, have you considered reporting this evidently non-compliant (with UL standards) safe to UL?  

Years ago, another safe manufacturer (an otherwise respected foreign manufacturer) had a UL certification revoked due to non-compliance of a TL safe they produced.

You would think that UL would want to investigate this evident misuse of a UL issued certification.

A very good idea.

I would highly recommend that you report your findings. A well documented report, providing as many details as you can, would be vital to getting a complaint recognized and on the radar. Phots of the nature posted here, along with measurements of material thickness are damming bits of convincing  evidence. Most complaints are frivolous or competition inspired, so there is little attention given unless there is some easy path to verify the fraudulent practices. You also want to preserve the sample, they may ask to have it sent out to Northbrook for examination. UL has an "Inspection Procedure" on file that is used for compliance verification in the factory. The details are adequate to demonstrate when a product is even a little short of the requirements. The Follow-up Services system of compliance verification is extraordinarily effective in the USA, but we have seen many incidents where offshore products seem to be getting by the process regularly.

Good idea. I will write a letter to UL and see what they say. I haven't destroyed the safe any further as I have been too busy.

I sent an email to Mutual but havnt heard back. I will write a letter to UL and keep the safe in the garage for a little while in case they ask to see it.

I would be shocked (and disappointed) if UL was dismissive of you in this matter.

UL charges a fortune for their certification programs, and if they allow that "brand" to be diluted by cheating manufacturers who sell non-compliant products bearing the UL certification, they would severely erode their own credibility as the largest and most respected independent testing agency in the world.  I would think that they will be very conscientious in following up with you.

The trouble is that there is no formal system to deal with fraudulent product discovery. Their system is designed to prevent the cheaters from cheating. We reported an accidental finding once, and were asked to keep the safe and wait for instructions... that was 2002... that safe is still in our bone-yard. There are lots of incidents like this. The one company that Frank mentioned.... they actually voluntarily stopped production, mostly because the case was well known in the niche industry where they did business, and the customer base was soured by negative competitive accusations of fraud. They were never formally shut down by UL. This case with the Mutual from Korea could still be a counterfeit safe. Either way, UL should hear about it.... and please, don't reference me or my company when you discuss the issues. UL is a VERY political organization, and I am seated on three different Standards Technical Panels at UL, one for mechanical and digital safe locks, one for security products and another for fire protection. I don't need to be put in a bad place because I am here helping you guys....

Double tap

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Was this the soltam incident which you guys are referring to?

Is soltam a reputable brand?

I have a friend who bought an old used soltam trtl 60 x 6 for his business and wonder if he got taken.

It seems like they disappeared after they got busted over their trtl 30 embarrassment, but I also thought they had one of the first trtl 60 ratings.

Is ism the new name for the old soltam?  They look very similar and are both from Israel so I wondered if they changed the name after the bad press on the trtl30 that got its certification pulled.

Sorry for the hijack.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

There are two different incidents with similar outcomes. Soltam was one of them. That company is gone. They no longer make safes (at least with UL Listings sold in the US Market). The other company also stopped production, Ultimate safe. Both companies were mixed up in alleged questionable compliance issues. Neither company maintains any current UL Listings. ISM is still a viable producer of TL rated safes, although they now only carry active listings on TL15, TL30 and TL30X6. All three of these companies are/were in Israel.

There is no way to know if a safe made by either of these shut down companies complies with their UL files.The public can not see those files, so even if we could dissect a safe, we could not verify the listing validity. UL's official posture is, if it has a label, it is a listed product. Unfortunately, this is what we have, and no more.

Just another UL tidbit that I was unaware of until I got a call from somebody at UL.

When a company gets a UL listing, it is for a finite period of time, and then they renew their listing.  So let's assume a company built 50,000 safes in 2010, with a valid UL listing, and had them sitting in a distribution warehouse.  By 2011, they let their listing expire.  They could still be selling those safes today, in 2013, and the listing is still legitimate, even if they are not listed as having any current UL listings.

I don't know how I was involved (they wouldn't say), but I received a call from UL once upon a time.  They were investigating UL tags on products that should not have had those tags.  This is when I learned the above, but what they were concerned about, was a safe sporting two UL tags  that had never been awarded one of the ratings.  They were asking if I had any of those safes, and if so, which tags were on them.  They requested photos, and that was the last I heard about it.

They do have some pretty illogical practices. For example:

One of the biggest questions for people rose when the retest program came about in 1992. The TL ratings had not changed something like 50 years. When they dreamed up the retest program, they had been progressively improving their tool complement and techniques. At that point, any listings that were more than 7 years old were subject to re-certification. As with many manufacturers, we had listings that were as much as 40 years old, some older. Many of those ratings were for products and types that had been dormant like listed relocking devices. We had just acquired the Major Safe Company, so we had redundant dual ratings in a host of categories. The whole program was highly destructive, because it forced all the active manufactures to spend tons of money. The result was that probably 80% of the ratings in the market were left to expire in 1994. We dropped all the Major TL ratings, along with several other ratings for a host of products.

The move was presumably in the best interest of the consumer, raising the bar to contemporary levels of tool quality and technology. That was the story, anyway. UL is a "non-profit" organization. They had developed a huge corporate infrastructure that survives on the testing and listing process, and this generated millions of dollars at time when they weren't doing so well. This sparked an uproar in the industry, because the program was so arbitrary, a big surprise, and came without any concern for the economic health of the companies they serve.

The secondary, and more boldly voiced concern was the impact on legacy products. The uproar from across the country brought the big question; "What about our old safe labels?". This move left millions of safes with UL ratings in some state of deficiency and inferiority. UL's position was firm and blunt, if it has a label, it's still a rated safe. The insurance companies didn't like that much, so there was a division there that has never been resolved. Don't be surprised if an insurance adjuster down-grades coverage for older UL ratings. This program is on a 7-years cycle, and that leaves another population of safes to be obsolete after every new test cycle.

Ever since the program started, and every cycle since, the bar has been raised considerably. UL had been holding back to provide a moderated degree of improvement every year. With ever cycle the team brought better techniques, more effective tools and more aggressive approaches. They recruited big strong oxes that were much more destructive with the simple tools, while seeking surgical tools that fit there tool selection philosophy but gave them an edge that didn't reflect the real world methods of entry. A safe tested in the 2008 cycle is probably 10 times more tool resistant than a safe made in 1994. A hardplate (lock) that was TL30 compliant in 1989 will only last 2-3 minutes today.

This is the kind of stuff that UL does, without regard for the industry it serves. This is also why the list of companies holding ratings today has become so short. The costs of a test for a given  burglary rating has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years. This is not a business for the meek. You have to be a serious player to stay engaged  in these product classes. The trends are forcing the commercial side of the business another direction, where digital security measures are now the primary security barrier, and most companies have downsized to B-Rate safes. Hardly anyone in the fast-food, convenience stores and other light retail markets use Tl rated safes any more. Most of those corporations are self-insured and altered their cash management methods so that burglary loss is too small to be concerned with any more, and their efforts are focused on the bigger source of losses, the employee.

Thank you for your specific answers, knowledge, and expertise.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Double thank you, that took a lot of time to post and it is fascinating and appreciated. It also very valuable knowledge for someone who just found a deal on an older safe that is "TL" rated. Depending on the security level really needed or desired it might not be as big as savings as one thinks.

Wait until UL decides to put a retest program in place on the RSC class of products.... You want to see this market thin out, that will make it happen FAST. Most of these guys got listings back when it was "easy". There are only a couple players that have other ratings, and know where this has taken security. All the others have a huge surprise waiting.

One of the things that most people assume is that UL is always doing the best they can. That's far from true. UL measures their efforts so that similar designs pass tests. But, in doing so, in many tests they develop better and better skills and methods. When they have the change to release the brakes and let their hair fly wild, shit goes down fast.

An example would be the 12 Gauge minimum steel thickness requirement for bodies on RSC products. When the testing began for RSC ratings in 1996, it took them the over 5 minutes to punch a 6-inch circle thru the body in 12 gauge, so that is where that benchmark was established. That same test today would probably be over in 3 minutes or less. The level of analytical skills and planning have improved dramatically. Their favorite "single-point" attack (boltwork) has been refined to the point where they can defeat most of these old designs with a single hole. Once you learn their way of thinking, then study a given design, you will see things in a whole new light. I'm not going to point to any specific brand, but there are some scary simple defeat methods that will take many popular brands down in a minute or less. I'm going to leave it at that...

A lot of people live with a false sense of security and will likely never know unless they fall victim to crime. Like the old adage, locks keep honest people honest.

I sent a letter to UL requesting that they look into this matter. I offered to provide the safe to them as well for their review. I will keep everyone posted.

By the way, I just recalled why Mutual Safe is so illusive. The listing is owned by a safe distributor in Southern California. They cross list with manufacturers in other countries and import. They were connected to the company in South Africa for so long I forgot that detail. So, for them to be using a Korean company makes good sense.

I have an update on my TL15 shenanigans.

A few months back I did write a letter to UL documenting everything I did and attached numerous photos. I expressed concern regarding how the door pan (or boltwork frame) was attached to the outer cast door. I also expressed concern regarding the strength and toughness of the concrete fill material used in the safe. I also asked how UL QC's safes made overseas. I even offered to ship the safe to them for their inspection. This was a letter not an email. They responded immediately and said they were opening an investigation.

I got their response today. UL said they investigated everything carefully and were very thorough in their review of the matter... then went on to say "We cannot comment on your reported being able to break into the safe and your method used. We find no non-compliance to UL requirements in UL records. UL conducts unannounced factory inspections quarterly to verify continued compliance to the certification.  The manufacturer is required to maintain records on the make-up of the concrete used, and conduct concrete break tests." Then went on to say the matter was closed.

In my mind they really didn't offer me much insight. They also said they couldn't be too specific or discuss all of their findings as they are based on proprietary information. I am still glad I wrote the letter though.

For your viewing enjoyment I found another video on YouTube of UL testing a TL-15 safe. I still think these guys should have shredded my safe in a few minutes, but oh well. UL Youtube Video

This video appears to be way more recent than the Meilink TL30 video posted a while back.

Anyways - the learning here is buyer beware. Just because your safe has a TL-15 rating, that doesn't mean much and you should definitely not expect the safe to protect your stuff for one second longer than the rated times.

Wow.

That shakes some confidence.

All I can say without getting in a pickle is; that shit doesn't happen on domestic made products. We can't get away with anything...

"UL conducts unannounced factory inspections quarterly to verify continued compliance to the certification."

If this may or may not be accurate on the imports it kind of shakes your confidence.

What UL said was:

1. We don't care about the safe you are reporting;  investigating/addressing customer complaints from the field are not part of UL protocols.
2.  We looked at our files, and UL factory "inspections" did not document any non-compliance, and that, is all we care about/address.

Your aren't seeing the forest because of all the trees.  TL-15 means that it at least passed this certification.  The typical rating that gun "safes" have is RSC because they could not meet any existing UL standards.  They had to come up with a new one.

From OPs description, it would be hard to believe it didn't take 15 minutes to get into the safe.

You have definitely overstated item 1. They have a market surveillance department and do solicit this type of feedback from consumers and do investigate based on consumer complaints. The department that does this is who I sent my letter to in the first place. Your interpretation in item 2 is interesting however. I will call the engineer at UL who investigated and speak to him directly to see if he will clarify for me.

yet more confirmation UL ratings and certification aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

TL-15, TL-30, toilet paper

Bwahhahahahahahahaaa....

Having worked in SEVERAL shops that produced UL rated products, and I can promise you they never made "unannounced" visits, especially not once a quarter...

They only showed up if we asked them too.

I wanna move our factory to where you live. Here in SoCal, the UL guys are like bees hovering around waiting for their chance to sting you. We always have to check the quarterly inspection frequency, because it seems like they are here more often than that all the time. We have multiple UL ratings in different classes, so we get random inspections at more than quarterly periods. I would be curious to see if there were a way to verify the absences of inspection frequency. This is a big deal. Evey time they come to our factory, we are under a magnifying glass, and then we get charged dearly for the visits.

It's not cheap, nor fun. They are very disruptive, and generally eat up the whole day when they come. The go thru inspection procedure files, looking at each product, measuring dimensional constraints, checking material thickness, digging thru vendor invoice for material cert's, etc. We have never had a major infraction, so there is no good reason to put us on a hot list compliance risk. Bottom line, there is no room for cheating here, I can tell you that with complete confidence. It makes me ill to hear about others that don't see the same high degree of oversight. Pretty unfair.

My next trip to Northbrook will be highlighted with a discussion on this matter. I have heard enough to make this a matter for the STP to review, and maybe file a complaint with FUS.

So why bother with the various UL ratings at all if you pay them for the ratings and then have to deal with a hassle to maintain them?  I understand the UL is "renting" you a label and you have to comply with their rules but do the benefits from carrying the label justify the expense and disruption?  It does seem totally unfair that your business gets inspected regularly and a factory in China or Korea probably never gets inspected.  This sounds like a good way to handcuff yourself in an arena that's already full of tough competition.

Because our customers require ratings. The Gunsafe industry is around 20% of our overall business, and the other market segments have requirements, including insurance specifications. Maintaining UL ratings is not an option we can abandon. Resolving problems is the only path.

So are there no other sources for accreditation? The UL is the only game in town?




Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Unfortunately, yes, they are....

So you pay for the testing and have to meet the UL standard before you're allowed to use the label.  Then once the label is obtained you're subject to regular audits and inspections that you've got to pay for?  What are the repercussions of failing an audit?  You're levied a fine?

This seems almost too good to be true--for the UL.

Have any security manufacturers ever looked into setting something up like SAAMI?

Well, a fine, in a way. When you are found to have a non-compliance issue, you are issued a Variation Notice. If the deficiency is serious, the inspector will confiscate your serialized label inventory. These labels are the key to control. If you try to go around these controls, you will be asked to quietly stop making products. UL is a large organization, and a huge part of that is legal services. Variation Notices of the minor type are usually handled with some negotiation with FUS (Follow-Up Services), in hand with BP&S (Burglar, Protection and Signalling - the UL group that does safes). Most of the time it's clerical stuff with documentation error or poor verification specimens on file, other times there are changes in manufacturing that need to take place. In either case, corrective action is taken, then FUS verifies with subsequent visits.

The whole process can cost you between $1500 and $5000 under normal circumstances. You don't want to get on the radar with this process, because they start looking deeper every time you have an infraction. It's easier to follow the rules than to try to cheat, at least here in SoCal. The inspectors are not idiots. They are engineers with a strong background. They are not easily fooled with BS.

Getting together an industry sponsored rating system will never happen with such diversity in the manufacturing side. We tried this with fire ratings, huge fail and very costly. They all say yes to your face, but when it comes time to write checks, they all run like cockroaches when the light come on. Besides that, the insurance industry (where the real money is) would never buy off on a self-governing rating service. They want independent compliance standards to assure a fair and equitable set of standards.

What you are forced to do is how it should be. Strong oversight and vigilant inspection by UL. I hope they do this with the same vigor in overseas factories - but I suspect that may not be the case.

sounds like a great scam.

So only products manufactured where UL has a workable presence should be labeled. Works for me.

UL doesn't just do safes.  They inspect practically everything in your life.  Look at anything electronic it will have a UL rating one it somewhere (computer, mouse, keyboard, power supply) lamps, etc.  They also inspect many things in the engineering/construction business: steam turbine, transformers, breakers, heat exhangers etc.

I spoke to the engineer at UL today.

He was friendly and professional but didn't offer much new information.

He did say that, based on my report and findings, they did consider testing a random sample of a new production safe to verify its construction, but the safe model I destroyed hadn't been manufactured for 3-4 years. We also talked about the re-certification program and, based on what we discussed, it didn't sound like this safe was submitted for re-testing and re-certification.

He also said that from time to time, 'experts like me' (referring to myself ...its a good thing I didnt mention this thread ), do submit reports to UL regarding safes and locks, along with reports of being able to defeat the product in question. After this part of the conversation, he again re-iterated there wasn't much UL could do as this safe is no longer being manufactured. He also indicated they didn't attempt to find 'new old stock' of this safe for re-inspection at any retail shops or distributors as they had no other complaints regarding this particular safe.

We talked about the UL 'quarterly inspections' and he insisted they do in fact complete those even for foreign factories. He didn't say that local third party inspectors were used, but he did say that UL has people and offices all over the world (including Asia).

For me this is closed and I will finally haul this thing to the dump (or more likely I will spend a few more minutes cutting and smashing it up into smaller pieces that don't look like a shredded safe) then haul it to the dump.

I would never buy an import/overseas high security safe ever again. Its domestic or GTFO. I also would be very reluctant to purchase a composite safe ever again. Steel is steel (for the most part) and welds can be inspected prior to purchase, but based on my experience, only god knows how strong the concrete fill on a composite safe is (and whether or not it has proper reinforcement inside it) or how adequate the door components are composited together. At least with a plate safe you can inspect most of the key areas by just popping the hood...

Everyone should use this as a lesson and re-align their expectations of their safe setups, including any 'gunsafes' or RSCs they may have. If I could do this to a TL15 in a matter of a few minutes (15 or whatever...) then what would happen if someone with the right tools went at your RSC or sheetmetal/drywall gunsafe. Its pretty scary.

Your mileage may vary...

You may want to limit that to inexpensive Asian safes.  There are all sorts of very well built safes that come from all over the world, especially Europe.

Fair enough. Absolutely what I meant.

Be careful. There are "third-world" countries on every continent. Eastern Block, Africa, Spain, Greece, Middle East, Mexico, Central and South America, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and any of the smaller eastern Asian countries... anywhere where there is wide-spread poverty and poor infrastructure is a breeding ground for corruption. It's probably fair to say that the problem follows that kind of social and cultural environment. The challenge is knowing where they come from. None of the markings reveal the country of origin. Manufacturers can, and will, move their products around to the low-cost producer of the day.

yet more confirmation.. construction means everything, UL rating means little. every conversation with UL posted here just confirms that again and again.

who watches the watchers? apparently nobody.

there is no substitute for steel. more is better.

Sounds like that would be a large fix to the problem, have the date of certification + country on the UL label.  Then you'd know if you had a RSC from 1995+Bolivia or 2012+Germany.

Bought a amsec bf on the advice of my locksmith cousin years ago, only regret is the typical one - should have went bigger ;)