User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 3:59:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(FUS, the after-listing process of random quality inspections) FUS is not a "random quality inspection". FUS is the means by which the NRTL continually verifies that the product you are manufacturing and marking with a listing label is identical(*) in construction to the product that you submitted for testing. otherwise, underhanded companies would simply submit one variant of a unit for compliance testing, and then manufacture another similar variant which (for example) has lower manufacturing costs. the random nature of FUS -- namely, a UL (or similar NRTL inspector) showing up at your manufacturing location to compare the on-file construction report with what is actually being manufactured -- means that companies can not cheat by revising their product after the listing mark has been granted for it. any variance between the construction report and the product can result in a variation notice, or perhaps manufacturing being shut down, and in the worst case scenario you may have to go and fetch from the field all of the products that were shipped since the last FUS visit. ar-jedi (*) allowances are made in the construction report for variations in color, etc which do not affect form/fit/function of the product. as an easy example, the construction report for a residential electrical outlet may state, "plastic housing to be 94V-0 rated, and may be white, ivory, or black in color." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 4:26:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my question above is due to the fact that i'm uncertain how continued construction compliance is assured over manufacturing lifecycle in an environment without FUS. ar-jedi We invite anyone to take any of our ETL rated products and see for themselves. We have made it perfectly clear that this test protocol is a proposed voluntary "Standard" for the Gunsafe Industry, and ETL will gladly run that program exactly the same way they have run the test for us on four separate occasions now. No tricks, no games, no cheating, no kidding. The test is extremely repeatable, and we have proven that too with multiple tests of the same safe designs as a control group. They can test up to 6 safe at one time. Performance deviation is well below 5%. That's pretty damn good. Here is an example of what we have learned: I can tell you without any doubt that a 2-layer drywall safe can not go 1 hour under a real 1200º test program. We have tried multiple times improving every other aspect of construction. It's not possible. There is simply not enough steam capacity to get there. We have come very close, but the cost of the "enhancements" make it too costly for the market. There are MANY 2-layer safes out there that claim 1-hour fire endurance (some longer). That ain't happening unless you compromise the test program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 4:33:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
just to clarify one thing for our readers... FUS is not a "random quality inspection". FUS is the means by which the NRTL continually verifies that the product you are manufacturing and marking with a listing label is identical(*) in construction to the product that you submitted for testing. Well, the word "Random" was meant to mean you are not scheduled with an appointment for inspection. The client doesn't know when an inspection will happen so they can prepare. The FUS inspectors come without notice for the compliance (quality) checking. So, it is Random, and it is Quality in that context. The NRTL is not involved in UL FUS Operations in our market or any of our product classes. That is an OSHA compliance verification system that is not concerned with fire and burglary standards. We have no dealings with NRTL. UL-FUS does all of their own "product verifications". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 5:24:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the word "Random" was meant to mean you are not scheduled with an appointment for inspection. The client doesn't know when an inspection will happen so they can prepare. The FUS inspectors come without notice for the compliance (quality) checking. So, it is Random, and it is Quality in that context. The NRTL is not involved in UL FUS Operations in our market or any of our product classes. That is an OSHA compliance verification system that is not concerned with fire and burglary standards. We have no dealings with NRTL. UL-FUS does all of their own "product verifications". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Testing_Laboratory UL, CSA, MET, Intertek, etc are examples of NRTL's. the term NRTL came about because 30 years ago, Met Labs sued OSHA about 87 times over the wording in the 1970's era National Electric Code, which stipulated that products needed to be "UL Listed" for their intended purpose. nowadays, the NEC and similar safety codifications state something on the order of "products need to be Listed by an NRTL" for their intended purpose. this is why, going back to my electrical receptacle example, on the packaging sold here in the USA you may see "UL Listed" or "CSA Listed" or "MET Listed" and so on. as long as it's an NRTL-recognized lab, the listing is lawful and valid. but to reiterate, FUS is not about "quality" -- you can manufacture shitty products that do not work, and still you can clear a FUS inspection without a VN all day every day. FUS is about the NRTL (UL, CSA, MET, Intertek, etc) ensuring that the product which is being manufactured in volume is identical in construction to the article that was submitted for testing and subsequent listing. otherwise, unscrupulous companies (and there are lots of them) will modify their production design to be cheaper to manufacture the moment that the listing is approved. again, i'm having trouble reconciling how testing/listing works in the absence of FUS. ar-jedi |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 7:15:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Well, as I said, we have no dealings with NRTL, and only with UL and ETL.
and... in the language regarding FUS, THEY use the term Quality interchangeably with Compliance. NRTL is not a party to this discussion. As for the value of a listing without FUS, agreed... any manufacturer can cheat all they want. It's the Consumer and competitors that represent the deterrent. The issue here was about having a common standard testing program. It's a step in the direction to normalize product comparisons, but not the ultimate solution. Right now many companies place fire rating labels without ever putting even a match to a safe. One step at a time... maybe |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 10:12:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We invite anyone to take any of our ETL rated products and see for themselves. We have made it perfectly clear that this test protocol is a proposed voluntary "Standard" for the Gunsafe Industry, and ETL will gladly run that program exactly the same way they have run the test for us on four separate occasions now. No tricks, no games, no cheating, no kidding. The test is extremely repeatable, and we have proven that too with multiple tests of the same safe designs as a control group. They can test up to 6 safe at one time. Performance deviation is well below 5%. That's pretty damn good. To Sig's point earlier, real results trump laboratory tests ALWAYS. So ... if the point of the new 'Standard' is to predict how a gun safe of different designs will do in a real house fire, having two misses with such a small sample size gives the new test a very low confidence level to its accuracy from a statistical point of view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 10:23:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat Quote History As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat and even direct fire impingement based on their proximity to the outer wall and presence of the remains of the metal roofing resting on top of the safes after the truss work and wooden decking burnt away while sandwiched in between. based on testimony from the owner in the video, the safes were exposed to this fire for multiple hours. The house fire may have been burning for hours. The fire department may have been there for hours. The garage where the safes were located didn't burn for hours and the safes were never exposed to heat for hours. That's certainly what some would like you to take away from the video, but those of us who know what we are dealing with know better. So far I have posted photos of two safes that were burned under similar circumstances. Although they both look like horrible burn downs, they too were quick burns with little fuel to sustain high heat levels for substantial periods of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2018 11:51:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, as I said, we have no dealings with NRTL, and only with UL and ETL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, as I said, we have no dealings with NRTL, and only with UL and ETL. Quoted:
and... in the language regarding FUS, THEY use the term Quality interchangeably with Compliance. https://services.ul.com/service/ul-mark-surveillance/ UL Mark Surveillance Overview UL’s UL Mark Surveillance, also known as Follow-up Service (FUS), distinguishes UL from other certification service providers and is fundamental to the integrity of the UL Mark. We protect our customers' investment in our certifications by maintaining an ongoing business relationship with manufacturers using the UL Mark. Throughout the lifetime of a certification, UL’s Field Engineers conduct factory audits and blind sampling of certified products chosen from the open market to assess continued compliance with UL requirements. By protecting the integrity of UL certifications, we add real value to our customers' brands. We share a common goal with our customers in ensuring only those products fully complying with UL’s requirements carry the UL Mark. We also offer customized on-site support and training to help customers prepare for their first UL Mark surveillance visit. Definition Throughout the lifetime of a UL certification, UL regularly audits a manufacturer’s production facilities and products to determine continued compliance with UL requirements. The frequency of inspection is based on the type of product or number of UL Marks applied. Benefits Customers and UL share a common goal of seeing that only those products fully complying with UL’s requirements carry the UL Mark. UL offers customized on-site support and training to help customers prepare for their first Follow-Up Service visit. Quoted:
NRTL is not a party to this discussion. Quoted:
As for the value of a listing without FUS, agreed... any manufacturer can cheat all they want. It's the Consumer and competitors that represent the deterrent. The issue here was about having a common standard testing program. It's a step in the direction to normalize product comparisons, but not the ultimate solution. Right now many companies place fire rating labels without ever putting even a match to a safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2018 9:58:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Yup. Which didn't occur anywhere near the safes. Nope. The house fire may have been burning for hours. The fire department may have been there for hours. The garage where the safes were located didn't burn for hours and the safes were never exposed to heat for hours. That's certainly what some would like you to take away from the video, but those of us who know what we are dealing with know better. So far I have posted photos of two safes that were burned under similar circumstances. Although they both look like horrible burn downs, they too were quick burns with little fuel to sustain high heat levels for substantial periods of time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat and even direct fire impingement based on their proximity to the outer wall and presence of the remains of the metal roofing resting on top of the safes after the truss work and wooden decking burnt away while sandwiched in between. based on testimony from the owner in the video, the safes were exposed to this fire for multiple hours. The house fire may have been burning for hours. The fire department may have been there for hours. The garage where the safes were located didn't burn for hours and the safes were never exposed to heat for hours. That's certainly what some would like you to take away from the video, but those of us who know what we are dealing with know better. So far I have posted photos of two safes that were burned under similar circumstances. Although they both look like horrible burn downs, they too were quick burns with little fuel to sustain high heat levels for substantial periods of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 12:12:17 AM EDT
[#10]
No problem. Just keeping it real so those that don't know what they're looking at aren't being mislead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 1:28:50 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would hope after seeing the OP video that you would admit that this new "Standard" might have some limitations. As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat and even direct fire impingement based on their proximity to the outer wall and presence of the remains of the metal roofing resting on top of the safes after the truss work and wooden decking burnt away while sandwiched in between. The new 'Standard' test predicted failure in 8.5 minutes yet based on testimony from the owner in the video, the safes were exposed to this fire for multiple hours. But then to go off about truss construction and wooden decking? Did you see a video of the house under construction before the fire? Or did you know this house prior to the burn down? How many floors was it? What else was in the area of the safes? Was it laminated beams, Heavy timber or manufactured wooden I beam construction? Was it plywood sheathing on the exterior? Or was it something like poly foamboard? Was it unfinished walls with exposed studs? Or was it sheetrocked and finished walls? Was it insulated? With fiberglass, rockwool, or maybe fire resistant spray foam? How about windows and doors? How many, and what type? Was there a ridge vent in the roof? Or maybe an exhaust fan? How about the garage door? What kind of weather seals did it have? Was the door into the house anself closing fire rated door? Was it propped open? Or was it closed at the time of the fire? And lastly, where was the point of ignition? Close to or far from the safes? Was the roof/attic self vented before the fire reached the garage? Or was the ignition point near the safes and was never in a full, free burn, oxygen fed state until it breached the garage wall and by that time the area around the safes was already charred and smoldering...? These are things that you need to know before you can even guess about what sort of temperature those safes were exposed to and for what duration... over 20 years as a firefighter, command level officer and have seen hundreds of fires in private homes, new and old construction and I couldnt even begin to guess about temperature and duration from that one video. Please stop pulling made up “facts” out of thin air, someone may think what you are saying is based on something besides wild assed guessing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 1:48:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To Sig's point earlier, real results trump laboratory tests ALWAYS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 9:31:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To Sig's point earlier, real results trump laboratory tests ALWAYS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 9:09:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really have no idea when it comes to house fires. Nothing Could be farther from the truth. The only thing you said that might be true is they may have had some limited time with direct flame impingement from an exterior wall, if infact they were pushed up against the wall. But hours? Hardly. Non fire resistant houses normally furnished, will double in fire intensity every 90 seconds from the time of ignition and open flame. There is nothing in that house that was in a state of free burn for hours. If it was a 10,000 sqft Long Island mansion, it still wouldn't take “hours” in a free burning state. But then to go off about truss construction and wooden decking? Did you see a video of the house under construction before the fire? Or did you know this house prior to the burn down? How many floors was it? What else was in the area of the safes? Was it laminated beams, Heavy timber or manufactured wooden I beam construction? Was it plywood sheathing on the exterior? Or was it something like poly foamboard? Was it unfinished walls with exposed studs? Or was it sheetrocked and finished walls? Was it insulated? With fiberglass, rockwool, or maybe fire resistant spray foam? How about windows and doors? How many, and what type? Was there a ridge vent in the roof? Or maybe an exhaust fan? How about the garage door? What kind of weather seals did it have? Was the door into the house anself closing fire rated door? Was it propped open? Or was it closed at the time of the fire? And lastly, where was the point of ignition? Close to or far from the safes? Was the roof/attic self vented before the fire reached the garage? Or was the ignition point near the safes and was never in a full, free burn, oxygen fed state until it breached the garage wall and by that time the area around the safes was already charred and smoldering...? These are things that you need to know before you can even guess about what sort of temperature those safes were exposed to and for what duration... over 20 years as a firefighter, command level officer and have seen hundreds of fires in private homes, new and old construction and I couldnt even begin to guess about temperature and duration from that one video. Please stop pulling made up “facts” out of thin air, someone may think what you are saying is based on something besides wild assed guessing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would hope after seeing the OP video that you would admit that this new "Standard" might have some limitations. As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat and even direct fire impingement based on their proximity to the outer wall and presence of the remains of the metal roofing resting on top of the safes after the truss work and wooden decking burnt away while sandwiched in between. The new 'Standard' test predicted failure in 8.5 minutes yet based on testimony from the owner in the video, the safes were exposed to this fire for multiple hours. But then to go off about truss construction and wooden decking? Did you see a video of the house under construction before the fire? Or did you know this house prior to the burn down? How many floors was it? What else was in the area of the safes? Was it laminated beams, Heavy timber or manufactured wooden I beam construction? Was it plywood sheathing on the exterior? Or was it something like poly foamboard? Was it unfinished walls with exposed studs? Or was it sheetrocked and finished walls? Was it insulated? With fiberglass, rockwool, or maybe fire resistant spray foam? How about windows and doors? How many, and what type? Was there a ridge vent in the roof? Or maybe an exhaust fan? How about the garage door? What kind of weather seals did it have? Was the door into the house anself closing fire rated door? Was it propped open? Or was it closed at the time of the fire? And lastly, where was the point of ignition? Close to or far from the safes? Was the roof/attic self vented before the fire reached the garage? Or was the ignition point near the safes and was never in a full, free burn, oxygen fed state until it breached the garage wall and by that time the area around the safes was already charred and smoldering...? These are things that you need to know before you can even guess about what sort of temperature those safes were exposed to and for what duration... over 20 years as a firefighter, command level officer and have seen hundreds of fires in private homes, new and old construction and I couldnt even begin to guess about temperature and duration from that one video. Please stop pulling made up “facts” out of thin air, someone may think what you are saying is based on something besides wild assed guessing... Of course, all of this really ties back to the video and the evidence is overwhelming from a metallurgical standpoint. The dials melted off the safe which shows what the actual minimum temperature at the dial level had to be as a in order for that to happen. TSG claimed previously that S&G dials are made of Zamak which is an alloy of high concentration of Zinc and lower amounts of aluminum making for a lower melting point than standard aluminum. Why would S&G do that? Well not really sure but likely it was due to being more corrosive resistance with the higher zinc concentration if the dial should happen to be bare metal. Would they do that if the dial had been painted ... probably not since aluminum is cheaper. Reading through S&G's documentation it appears that there have been some design changes recently where S&G has been changing wheels from brass to aluminum which can only be a cost savings measure. So based on this trend, I'd suspect that a painted dial which doesn't necessarily need metal with better anti-corrosion properties as a plain aluminum alloy, then the cheaper choice would be to go with the aluminum alloy and save costs on a fabricated part basis. If that is the case that the parts are made of aluminum, then the minimum melting point would be over 1200F instead of the lower range mentioned earlier. I actually have two Sturdy safes, one is 12 years old the other is only a few years with the thicker plate option of the bigger safe in the video which has only been available for not much time longer. So ... if the bigger safe with the S&G 6730 lock is a similar build to mine which I suspect it is then I could theoretically test the metal used on the dial and ring to determine what it is made from, then everyone here would accept that the minimum temperature level the safe was exposed was X based on that evidence ... RIGHT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 9:31:47 PM EDT
[#15]
I could theoretically test the metal used on the dial and ring to determine what it is made from, then everyone here would accept that the minimum temperature level the safe was exposed was X based on that evidence ... RIGHT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 11:26:19 PM EDT
[#16]
The Melting Point of Zamak 3, the zinc alloy used in most all zinc die cast parts in our industry, is 384ºC (723ºF). Only slight variations are found with slightly different primary zinc alloys.
ZAMAK 3 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2018 11:38:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the rest of the data (I.e., surfaces mount thermocouples on all five sides of the safe exposed as required by UL 72 which is the industry accepted standard?) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the rest of the data (I.e., surfaces mount thermocouples on all five sides of the safe exposed as required by UL 72 which is the industry accepted standard?) Why was the graph truncated at 800F and what's being hidden above that point? The furnace was only being controlled to 1200F so why not show the whole scale of the chart? I have intentionally stayed out of this argument, only answering questions that were directed at me by "mentions" in the thread. I will leave you to your thread and your opinions. I am presenting answers, data and facts, not arguments this time around. Have a nice day Rocky... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2018 12:09:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Melting Point of Zamak 3, the zinc alloy used in most all zinc die cast parts in our industry, is 384ºC (723ºF). Only slight variations are found with slightly different primary zinc alloys. ZAMAK 3 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2018 12:26:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well actually I do have some training in fire investigation albeit not in residential but industrial. I do have a bachelors, masters, PE license (no longer current as I'm using the 'manufacturing' exemption because it is costly in NY State) in engineering and 28 years in the metals industry working on furnace design and control. I'm actually a EE, with power and instrumentation as my area of focus in school and I look at charts like was posted earlier daily. If I saw a chart with data traces like those shown in the graph, I'd throw the data set out because I knew something wasn't right. That's what should have been done on the ETL test but was instead published as a single data point for all safes tested. Where is the rest of the data (I.e., surfaces mount thermocouples on all five sides of the safe exposed as required by UL 72 which is the industry accepted standard?) Why was the graph truncated at 800F and what's being hidden above that point? The furnace was only being controlled to 1200F so why not show the whole scale of the chart? Of course, all of this really ties back to the video and the evidence is overwhelming from a metallurgical standpoint. The dials melted off the safe which shows what the actual minimum temperature at the dial level had to be as a in order for that to happen. TSG claimed previously that S&G dials are made of Zamak which is an alloy of high concentration of Zinc and lower amounts of aluminum making for a lower melting point than standard aluminum. Why would S&G do that? Well not really sure but likely it was due to being more corrosive resistance with the higher zinc concentration if the dial should happen to be bare metal. Would they do that if the dial had been painted ... probably not since aluminum is cheaper. Reading through S&G's documentation it appears that there have been some design changes recently where S&G has been changing wheels from brass to aluminum which can only be a cost savings measure. So based on this trend, I'd suspect that a painted dial which doesn't necessarily need metal with better anti-corrosion properties as a plain aluminum alloy, then the cheaper choice would be to go with the aluminum alloy and save costs on a fabricated part basis. If that is the case that the parts are made of aluminum, then the minimum melting point would be over 1200F instead of the lower range mentioned earlier. I actually have two Sturdy safes, one is 12 years old the other is only a few years with the thicker plate option of the bigger safe in the video which has only been available for not much time longer. So ... if the bigger safe with the S&G 6730 lock is a similar build to mine which I suspect it is then I could theoretically test the metal used on the dial and ring to determine what it is made from, then everyone here would accept that the minimum temperature level the safe was exposed was X based on that evidence ... RIGHT? comments edited out, knock off the personal comments - D_J Post fire investigation and cause determination are not something that you take a class for and are certified. As just an example, the BATFE certifies their bomb technicians and post blast investigators after a 3 month class. Their arson and fire investigators go through a 3 month class followed by a two year apprenticeship before they are certified... If you have ANY actual training in fire investigation, be it residential or commercial, then you would know that video is useless without knowing what the layout, construction and fireload of the house was PREignition. Plus knowing what was the specs on the safes including what locks they had. So again, stop making statements as fact, for which you have ZERO proof. You may have an impressive resume, but its not going to help you find facts supporting your argument that just arent there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2018 12:30:13 AM EDT
[#20]
I'd be interested in an analysis of why it took a "professional locksmith" 2 days to get into those safes. The job on those safes shouldn't have taken more than 1 hour each for somebody with moderate experience including snack breaks. I understand everything else that I'm seeing except that. That's the only thing that hasn't been explained in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2018 2:53:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be interested in an analysis of why it took a "professional locksmith" 2 days to get into those safes. The job on those safes shouldn't have taken more than 1 hour each for somebody with moderate experience including snack breaks. I understand everything else that I'm seeing except that. That's the only thing that hasn't been explained in this thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2018 8:07:39 PM EDT
[#22]
I just figured it was exaggeration. It appears to be a common theme.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2018 3:41:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would hope after seeing the OP video that you would admit that this new "Standard" might have some limitations. As shown in the video, the safes were exposed to at the very least average (1200F) to above average heat and even direct fire impingement based on their proximity to the outer wall and presence of the remains of the metal roofing resting on top of the safes after the truss work and wooden decking burnt away while sandwiched in between. The new 'Standard' test predicted failure in 8.5 minutes yet based on testimony from the owner in the video, the safes were exposed to this fire for multiple hours. To Sig's point earlier, real results trump laboratory tests ALWAYS. So ... if the point of the new 'Standard' is to predict how a gun safe of different designs will do in a real house fire, having two misses with such a small sample size gives the new test a very low confidence level to its accuracy from a statistical point of view. You can take away 2, and only 2 things from the video. 1. His house burned down 2. Safe contents were undamaged Thats it and thats all. Period. Full stop. Thread closed. No attempts to deflect with metallurgy tests or UL testing 
Nobody here is arguing that these safes did not do their job, and do it well. Your conclusion that Sturdy's insulation methods are superior to anything else currently available in a well developed market is what most people are (rightly) arguing. That theory simply doesn't work with events that have random data sets such as house fires. The point of laboratory fire testing is to test a safe to the limits of its design performance with a specific, repeatable set of conditions. Not "average house fire", but "worst house fire". Hell a 2 layer drywall safe might've been able to make it through that fire. We don't know. Again, it would be very simple for Sturdy to send a safe to get tested if this ceramic wool blanket is so good. They would take the market by storm and disrupt an entire industry for a paltry $17k investment. They're either the worst business people in the world, or they know its snake oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2018 11:09:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those who paid for the test know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen this graph before but haven't seen the info on which line is which. Do we know which other brands were tested? Is the "3-inch Ceramic Blanket" a Sturdy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2018 11:32:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why bother posting this graph all over the internet? It's worthless to us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2018 3:03:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What exactly makes it worthless? I can't conclude Liberty lasted longer than Cannon or Browning lasted longer than Winchester, etc. Yes, I can see AMSEC beat out "competitors" but.... It would be like reading a shootout article in a car magazine. They say "Mustang" wins against "competitors". I don't know if they're talking about Corvette or a Ford Festiva? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2018 3:31:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe I worded that wrong. I just don't see the point for most people. I can't conclude Liberty lasted longer than Cannon or Browning lasted longer than Winchester, etc. Yes, I can see AMSEC beat out "competitors" but.... It would be like reading a shootout article in a car magazine. They say "Mustang" wins against "competitors". I don't know if they're talking about Corvette or a Ford Festiva? The important thing is that these tests are conducted with consistency and honesty by a reputable independent lab with strong ethics and integrity. You have not seen a single competitor present data to the contrary, not one. I can assure you that a few have gone in to test under this program, the Lab tells me they have, without divulging who the customer was (they respect confidentiality too). So, given that knowledge, and the lack of any publication of data, we can probably assume they found the same thing we found, disappointment. If someone had a favorable fire performance story to tell, you can bet it would be shared here and elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2018 3:54:14 PM EDT
[#28]
One thing to note, at least it looks that way to me, is that the safe I assume is the Sturdy fared about the same as what is probably something like a Winchester.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2018 7:03:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So here we are 6 years later. Every couple of years I drop by this forum, and there's always a recent thread on the first page with Rockola extolling the virtues of ceramic blankets and Sturdy safes. Don't ever change, Rockola, don't ever change. You're a touchstone of constancy in this chaotic, ever-changing world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2018 6:59:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL Every couple of years I drop by this forum, and there's always a recent thread on the first page with Rockola extolling the virtues of ceramic blankets and Sturdy safes. Don't ever change, Rockola, don't ever change. You're a touchstone of constancy in this chaotic, ever-changing world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2018 11:37:32 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well thanks gasdoc09. I won't be changing any time soon despite the goofy graphs posted by AMSEC extolling their design's superiority. Now if AMSEC were to post a few real world examples of their AMSEC BF gunsafe design after burndowns from customers' homes where the contents looked anywhere near as nice as the three examples Sturdy has shown with their RCF designed safe, maybe I'd say the BF's design would work ok too but I haven't seen that yet from AMSEC. BTW, did you miss the OP video ... pretty impressive results wouldn't you say? I'm happy for the owners. Sorry for their other losses, but glad at least something survived the fire. But objectively, speaking as a trained scientist, the results are difficult to interpret because we know so little about the actual conditions the safe was exposed to. Intelligent, informed, reasonable people would defer drawing any conclusions about how that safe model would perform in a fire. But all of this has been explained to you, repeatedly, over a number of years. I'm not at all surprised that you still don't get it. And if AMSEC did post random burndown pictures of some of their BFs, you'd be just as wrong to conclude anything from those pictures too. Your basic problem seems to be this white-knighting obsession you have with defending the little guy (Sturdy) from perceived assault from a big guy (AMSEC). It's ... ridiculous. You're totally, completely missing the point. It's not about AMSEC, or Sturdy. It's about your marvelous inability to tell the difference between anecdote and data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2018 6:56:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: But objectively, speaking as a trained scientist, the results are difficult to interpret because we know so little about the actual conditions the safe was exposed to. Intelligent, informed, reasonable people would defer drawing any conclusions about how that safe model would perform in a fire. Both S&G dials melted away on the mechanical combo locks. Even if they were made of Zamak 3 as TSG suggests, that still puts the minimum temperature at the dial level in excess of 730F. Of course, the dials are connected to the non-exposed lockbox via a metal shaft (brass?) that can conduct heat away from the dials so the heat input has to be well in excess of a 730F air temp to build up enough heat to melt the dials away in the 4 hour duration of the fire (owner's comment). The cold rolled steel used for the metal roofing is actually pretty strong despite its small gauge thickness. From the video, you can see that roofing had become so soft that it has re-crystallized which isn't going to happen for that alloy and temper at temperatures below 1200F. The safes were also both against a wall that is no longer present as well as having metal roofing on top of them without any truss work or decking present so both safes had direct contact with flames because the wood didn't just disappear on their own. Not sure why you guys have to Troll any Sturdy thread that comes along; can't you just say 'looks like in this particular case the design appeared to work okay?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2018 2:05:10 PM EDT
[#33]
I didn't realize how many "facts" where included in that video...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2018 3:47:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
That doesn't mean that I actually want to spend money on a Sturdy Safe though over a proven (in real life and in true laboratory testing) product like the AMSEC BF series. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
