AMSEC BF vs. Sturdy safe question

[adirondack]

a1abdj wrote

Although the Sturdy is a decent gun safe, based on my years of experience as a safe tech, the AMSEC BF has the Sturdy beat in both categories. You can search around for many of the discussions we've had here if you want specifics on why this is the case.

Sorry for the late response, I wanted to comment earlier but didn't have the time till now.

Well I do respect your experience in this area and you definitely are one of the experts on safes here in this forum but from an engineering perspective, I’m just not seeing the same thing as you are so please if I’m missing something that might help someone make the right choice for themselves please let me/us know.

Again, I’m not saying the AMSEC BF series safe isn’t a good safe because I believe it is and would gladly own one. In my opinion, in this category and price range these are the two best I have found.

Here’s why I think the Sturdy gun safe has the AMSEC BF beat though in the area of fire protection and since I can’t run an actual test and show the results I’m forced to give a mathematical model. Sorry this is long but I’m sure someone is going to want to know where the numbers are coming from.

Assume we have both of these gun safes in a house fire which is 1275F and continues for 90 minutes until the fire department puts the fire out (According to AMSEC’s website the BF series is rated for Mercury Class III fire protection of 1275°F for 90 minutes and designed to maintain an interior temperature of less than 350°F so we will use those numbers as the standard since the BF is UL listed.) For this example both safes will have the same dimensions: 2 meters tall, 1 meter wide and 1 meter deep (using SI units are easier to follow the numbers.)

We know from thermodynamics that the primary mode of heat transfer from the house fire to the interior of the gun safes will be by way of conduction. Fourier Law of Conduction (steady state) tells us that heat will flow from the high temperature region to the low temperature based on the following equation: Q=-kA (T2-T1)/L where q is the heat flow rate, k is the thermal conductivity coefficient of the material in question, A is the cross section area of the heat flow region, L in the depth of the material and T2-T1 is the delta difference in temperature between boundaries (exterior to interior).
The Sturdy safe’s materials are well defined on their website so it’s easy to build a model for their design and since we are just comparing the two safes on a one to one basis, we can find the heat transfer of sections and add them up for the total heat flow rate to the safe’s interior.

The standard Sturdy Safe with fire lining has four layers as seen from their website. For the sides and back of the safe there is an outer shell of 7ga steel, next layer is a 1 inch(0.0254m) 2300F rated ceramic wool blanket, next 1 inch (0.0254m) of 1000F fiber glass, then a 14ga steel inner liner. Because the materials in the safe are in contact with each other at their boundaries we can just add up their thermal resistances (similar to an electrical circuit with resistors in series) and determine the rate of heat flow Q. The coefficients (K) of materials in SI units used are: Steel (1%carbon) = 43 W/mC, Ceramic Wool = 0.06 W/mC, Fiber Glass = 0.04 W/mC. So substituting the appropriate thermal resistance coefficients and depth of material gives and the temperature difference between the 1275F house fire and average temperature of the safe’s interior to go from room temperature to 350F (in SI units though) gives the following:

Q(sides and back)=-1m^2(691C-100C)/(0.0048/43+0.0254/0.06 +0.0254/0.04+0.0019/43) = 549 W (per meter sq of surface area).

For the top and bottom of the Sturdy Safe there is an extra inch of Fiberglass insulation depth so that rate of heat transfer is: Q(top and bottom)= 349 W/m^2. For the door, there is thicker steel but the heat flow rate is basically the same as the top and bottom of the safe. So based on the dimensions of the safe we have the overall average heat flow rate would be:

Q (Overall Heat Flow Sturdy) = (4m^2)(349W/m^2)+(6m^2)(549W/m^2) = 4690Watts

For the AMSEC BF series safe there is a little reverse engineering needed since we don’t have specs on their “Drylight” concrete. The thing that we generally know about concrete is strength increases with density but the opposite is true for thermal insulation. Because the primary purpose of the insulation in the BF series safe is fire protection (and also based on comments made from those who have handled the material) Drylight is likely a Portland cement / Perlite mix aka Perlite Concrete). Since we know that AMSEC recently increased the density of the concrete mix and reduced the thickness of the shell of the BF from 10ga steel to 11ga steel, it is likely that the folks at AMSEC determined that they had room to increase the density of their concrete insulation without jeopardizing their UL fire rating. So based on that, my best guess is they were using a Portland cement to Perlite mix of 1:8 prior to the change but are now using 1:6. As reference, standard concrete has a thermal conductivity co-efficient K of 1.7 W/mC with a compressive strength around 3000PSI. Perlite concrete with a 1:6 mix has a K of 0.084 W/mC but a compressive strength of only 125PSI so there is a big tradeoff in strength to get the insulation properties.

As we know now from recent discussions, the body roof and floor of the BF series has three layers: an 11ga steel shell, around 2” of Drylight and another 14ga inner liner. The door has ½” of steel with 1” of Drylight for insulation. So doing a similar analysis as done above for the Sturdy safe shows that the overall average heat flow rate to the interior of the AMSEC BF series safe in a 1275F house fire would be:

Q (Overall Heat Flow BF Series) = 11,721Watts.

So based on this analysis, the AMSEC BF series safe transfers heat to the interior of the safe at a rate 2.5 times higher than the Sturdy Safe design. That would mean for the same house fire where an AMSEC BF series safe’s interior temperature reaches 350F the Sturdy safe would be around 185F. Also, since the AMSEC BF uses concrete with a significant mass as an insulating material, the insulation itself will hold heat and continue to transfer heat to the interior of the safe long after the fire ends and that’s even if the exterior had been cooled once. For the Sturdy Safe’s design, most of the mass is located on the steel shell with the light weight insulating material contributing a small percentage of mass and heat storing capacity of the safe so if you cool the exterior of the Sturdy safe after a fire, it won’t re-heat itself afterwards.

This is the longest comment I ever have made on a thread so I'd better stop but in my opinion and especially after doing this analysis, the Sturdy safe design is far superior to the AMSEC BF series in fire protection.

 

[a1abdj]

This is the longest comment I ever have made on a thread so I'd better stop but in my opinion and especially after doing this analysis, the Sturdy safe design is far superior to the AMSEC BF series in fire protection.

While reading what you wrote certainly made my head spin, and is probably accurate, it is missing details (like the "concrete" in the AMSEC not really being concrete) that make a big difference.

Without going into vast explanations, I will keep it simple.

There are several safe manufacturers currently in business, and several manufacturers no longer in business that have built millions of safes over the last several hundred years. UL has also been in the safe testing business for several decades, and test all matter of fire resistant containers (safes, cabinets, etc.)

I am not aware of any UL listed safe that uses ceramic wool, gypsum board, or any other means that gun safe manufacturers commonly use to achieve their rating. All of these safes use a "cement" type of fill, although the composition of that fill is definately different from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Ceramic wools are somewhat inexpensive, and very easy to install. If they were as effective as the method that has been used for 200 years, there should be at least one company (that has UL listed safes) using it as a primary insulation. I'm not aware of any, although a few companies do use it as a secondary insulation.

There is always somebody who can claim to have a better method, but if it really was, everybody else would jump on the bandwagon.

The cement type fills have been used, and continue to be used, by the biggest and best safe manufacturers world wide. I will assume the industry as a whole has it figured out better than you and I can break it down here on the forum.

 

[adirondack]

Well you are right, concrete and cement aren't the same thing. Cement is the primary component of concrete. Concrete, by definition is composed of three things: cement (normally Portland), water and an aggregate (typically sand and/or gravel.) Other things can be added to concrete to help prevent cracking etc but only the three basic things define concrete.

Portland cement in itself isn't a very good insulator with a thermal resistance coefficient K of 0.29 W/mC.

Perlite has excellent thermal resistance with a K of 0.04 to 0.06 W/mC which is comparable to the ceramic wool and fiber glass used in the Sturdy Safe design.

Perlite concrete as mentioned previously is just a Portland cement with the aggregate now being Perlite instead of sand or gravel for better thermal insulation as opposed to strength. And, if there is an aggregate involved, it is no longer cement by definition, it is concrete.

Short of AMSEC putting Perlite loose filled into the cavity instead of the solid mix they use, they likely won't be able to have better thermal insulation than Perlite alone unless they do what Sturdy Safe does and use a fiber fill of some sort. Yes they could have empty air to have less conduction but then radiate heat transfer becomes a factor.

I'm not sure where you are seeing cheap prices for ceramic wool because it is not cheap at all. I have bought quite a bit of it for projects I've been involved with at work and it's relatively expensive as compared to gypsum or cement/concrete.

And yes, I agree with you that the majority of the gun safe manufacturers have figured out how to make a gun safe and stay in business. They do it by using the cheapest products/ labor they can get away with and still get a customer to pay a premium price. It's rare to find companies like Sturdy still making a product with premium components, paying a good wage and charging a reasonable price.

I also want to point out, I didn't figure out anything. It is Sturdy Safe's design not mine although the use of materials is very similar to furnace projects I've been involved with ...

 

[a1abdj]

Well you are right, concrete and cement aren't the same thing.

The reality is that none of what these safe companies use would probably be considered either or. It is just easier for people to understand when it is explained in this fashion. A more accurate statement would be that it is a material that starts out in somewhat liquid form, and cures into a harder form. The material is engineered to be a barrier against heat.

Short of AMSEC putting Perlite loose filled into the cavity instead of the solid mix they use, they likely won't be able to have better thermal insulation than Perlite alone unless they do what Sturdy Safe does and use a fiber fill of some sort. Yes they could have empty air to have less conduction but then radiate heat transfer becomes a factor.

Most of these companies don't share their mixtures, but I doubt it's rocket science. I don't pretend to know the engineering behind these materials, but I do know that they work, work well, and are used by most of those in the business.

Stephen Hawking himself could invent a square wheel, and extol the virtues of his new design. However, as long as Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and every other major manufacturer is using round wheels, I will have to assume that is still the better option.

And yes, I agree with you that the majority of the gun safe manufacturers have figured out how to make a gun safe and stay in business. They do it by using the cheapest products/ labor they can get away with and still get a customer to pay a premium price.

Keep in mind that I am using safe manufacturing as a whole when forming my opinions on safe construction. Gun safes are only a small part of the safe industry.

It's rare to find companies like Sturdy still making a product with premium components, paying a good wage and charging a reasonable price.

I agree with you here, but AMSEC would also classify (in addition to being one of the largest safe manufacturers in the US).

also want to point out, I didn't figure out anything. It is Sturdy Safe's design not mine although the use of materials is very similar to furnace projects I've been involved with ...

I'm very friendly with Sturdy, and often suggest their products. I also end up installing safes that they sell and ship here locally.

Their insulation may very well be effective, but there are two things that keep me from telling everybody how great it is. First, the material used is in fact designed for insulating furnaces. In this application, you are looking to keep a lot of heat contained in a small space. In a safe, you are looking to do just the opposite.

Which brings me to the second point. If it was as good, why have other safe manufacturers (real safes, not gun safes) used this material? Although pound for pound, it may me more expensive as far as materials go, but I can assure you that building safes out of cast material requires labor and tooling that make it a more expensive process.

I can point you to hundreds, if not thousands, of UL rates safes using "cement" construction. I can not point you to one using anything else.

 

[Keizer]

Their insulation may very well be effective, but there are two things that keep me from telling everybody how great it is. First, the material used is in fact designed for insulating furnaces. In this application, you are looking to keep a lot of heat contained in a small space. In a safe, you are looking to do just the opposite.

BUT.......In a furnace, you are generating heat from inside. With a Sturdy safe and a house fire, the heat is generated from the outside. I think it would work just fine.

As you know, I own an Amsec BF series gun safe, but I think Sturdys insulation would be pretty affective in a house fire.

 

[TechBrute]

I am currently considering an Amsec 7250 and a Sturdy 4827. The AMSEC seems to have a more refined interior and more options. Security and Fire are primary considerations, but at the end of the day, the usability of the safe factors in.

 

[BADUNAME17]

Hi Alyssa here.

Their insulation may very well be effective, but there are two things that keep me from telling everybody how great it is. First, the material used is in fact designed for insulating furnaces. In this application, you are looking to keep a lot of heat contained in a small space. In a safe, you are looking to do just the opposite.

We feel this is very incorrect, and any engineer who uses these materials would tell you the same. A good king has many advisers so ya'll better not be afraid to call people who would really know like engineers, or even the ceramic wool and high temp glass manufacturers to see for yourself. Asking these questions to people who sell safes will always give you a biased answer! (You know I still love you thou Frank.) Heat transfer is heat transfer. Our material is installed around high temp ovens to keep heat in, it will work just as well to keep the heat out.

I can point you to hundreds, if not thousands, of UL rates safes using "cement" construction. I can not point you to one using anything else.

Safe companies that are raking in the money are the main ones who can afford to do "UL FIRE SAFE" tests in the first place. I feel, if ceramic was not expensive, major label safe companies would use the material, and therefore pay to get it tested. Ceramic and High Temp Glass is a lot more expensive than Dri-Light. Period.

I need to point out that Amsec does not have a "UL Listed Fire Safe" rating on any of their gun safes anyway!!! They have a "Mercury Class" IV (or whatever) rating and Mercury is not even a business that tests fire safes. They just made that name up. Call them and ask how they got those ratings for yourselves. They do have small fire safes that actually have "UL Fire Safe" ratings on them, BUT THESE SAFES ARE NOT MADE THE SAME WAY THEIR GUN SAFES ARE.


The person defending Sturdy in this exchange is a very intelligent consumer, with no agenda. When you look at other posts from actual customers of Sturdy Safe on forums, you will find that all of them tend to do the same, and defend us against those who are experts (who coincidentally sell other brand safes of their own).

Remember dont take our word, Franks word, or any other salesmens word on this stuff. Just do the research for yourselves. Contact local engineers or people who would obviously know and reach your own conclusions.

 

[rescueswimmer]

Alyssa,

I have a question. First off I guess I will put this out there. I am saving for a fire lined sturdy. I think from what I have read you get the most bang for your buck from your safes.

With that being said. All the videos that your your dad has put out has really shut up a lot of the critics, because you don't see anybody else doing this to their safes.

The only thing that people seem to argue back and forth over is your fire rating or material. You guys do have that crappy video showing the house fire but its not the best PR piece. Im sure in sunny CA there are enough houses that fire departments burn down for practice or even their "Fire Training Houses" to prove one of your safes with a good video.

Lberty has a video were they put some wood simulated guns and some dollar bills in one of theirs and burn it up for about 45 minutes or so. People ohh and ahh over it.

There is a fort knox video of some guys dropping a fort knox through a house then set the house on fire that some guys did.

Put some type of internal measuring device inside the safe and some other crap burn the house down and see what happens.

Has to be allot cheaper than paying 60k to UL to have a test down. Not to mention of the safe performs as advertised, You would make the people on the fence lean one way or the other.

 

[a1abdj]

and any engineer who uses these materials would tell you the same

Engineers are just like doctors, lawyers, and mechanics. Ask three different engineers the same question, and you are likely to get three different answers.

Asking these questions to people who sell safes will always give you a biased answer! (You know I still love you thou Frank.)

And of course I still love you too (just don't tell my girlfriend). I agree that you have to be careful who you ask. Most people who sell gun safes know absolutely nothing about safes, period. They may repeat what a manufacturer says, but that information is suspect. Manufacturers of products tend to be biased, and some outright lie, so this rules them out. Engineers are good at math, and can tell you what their calculator thinks will happen. Obviously testing can prove or disprove their theories.

I'm in a bit of a different category, since I deal with every part of the safe business. True I sell them, but I also move them, install them, drill them open, and see them after they have been in real life fires and burglaries. I don't pretend to know what an engineer knows, but I do know what I can see with my own two eyes.

To be fair, I haven't seen a ceramic lined safe come out of a real fire, and that's why I can't say it's a good or effective insulation. The reason for this is not very many companies use it, and none of the commercial manufacturers use it as their primary insulation. I can only assume there's a reason for that, and I doubt it's cost. I can show you $100,000 safes that don't use it, and if it was better than what they were using (cement type fill), cost certainly wouldn't be a problem.

Ceramic and High Temp Glass is a lot more expensive than Dri-Light. Period.

I'm confident this is true. However, there's also the expense of installing the product. The labor, machining, and double walling of the safe to prepare it for fill is a much more expensive process.

I need to point out that Amsec does not have a "UL Listed Fire Safe" rating on any of their gun safes anyway!!! They have a "Mercury Class" IV (or whatever) rating and Mercury is not even a business that tests fire safes.

There is currently no gun safe from any manufacturer that carries a UL fire rating. I bet there's a reason for that too (clue: they won't pass the test).

AMSEC tests their own products because they are large enough to buy the types of toys
to do it, and employ their own engineers that can run the test. Although I am usually skeptical of claims made by gun safe manufacturers, AMSEC is a slightly different story. They are one of the largest safe manufacturers in the US, and have been in business since the 1940s. They have a heck of a reputation, and I doubt they would risk playing the same games other manufacturers engage in.

Remember dont take our word, Franks word, or any other salesmens word on this stuff. Just do the research for yourselves. Contact local engineers or people who would obviously know and reach your own conclusions.

The problem is that doing one's own research will only result in the collection of suspect information. The only real way to know is to see, and a lot of that information is hard to come by because it's usually held in confidence by guys like me.

If I ever see a ceramic lined safe come out of a fire, I'll be the first to document it with photos. However, home fires with safes are fairly rare, and ceramic lined safes make up such a small percentage of safes in those homes that I probably won't see one any time soon.

I can post photos of "cement" filled safes all day long, because the vast majority of real safes are built this way. I can also post photos of gypsum lined gun safes, because they make up the largest percentage of gun safes in homes.

The reality is that most gun safes do not survive well in fires. They simply are not built to the same standards as UL rated safes, which is why they don't have UL ratings themselves.

 

[skykid]

Hello everybody
I'm new here and I'm also looking for a safe for my firearms
a1abdj what do you know about brown weapon safes and their fire proofing
here is the web site www.brownsafe.com/features_weapon_safes/Weapon_safe_single_door.html
I've been looking at the model B-6028 and the fireproof B-COM 6028
Thanks in advance for any and all answers

 

[a1abdj]

I have no idea what Brown is using for their fire lining.

Although I have heard many good things about Brown, I have seen some of their safes first hand, and was not very impressed. The fit, finish, and construction for the price was really lacking. Maybe I just saw the lemons, but I have been much more impressed with the Graffunders.

I also have a B rate safe (although mine are cumulative and not solid plate) that I'm selling now that's a fraction of the price of the Browns.

 

[lonegunman]

Not to hijack this thread but does anyone have any information on Brown safes, vault doors, their workings or quality that includes pics? I saw a magazine with a breakdown of the quality of a Graffunder door with a review of the product. I've never seen anything on Brown but their ads.

Do they really have five relockers? I believe one add or webpage said that and never explained it fully.

 

[adirondack]

The irony of all this debate about what is the best insulation for fire protection in a gun safe is that the best insulation is no insulation at all. It's true; a perfect vacuum will prevent conduction and convection heat transfer and if the inner liner of the gun safe were silver plated it would reflect back radiant heat as well and you would have a gun safe that is optimized for preventing all three modes of heat transfer from cooking the contents of your safe.

So knowing the above, a consumer should be skeptical when they hear claims from some of these manufacturers that say their concrete, cement, composite or whatever insulation are optimized for security and fire protection because those properties tend to be mutually exclusive (I.e., having one trait tends to reduce the other.) Yes a dense composite fill with a heavy mass might be able to absorb a lot of heat to delay its temperature rise but that heat will eventually transfer itself to the lower temperature region so unless you are able to rush in right after a fire and open your safe, it is likely your guns will get cooked during the "cool down" period.

Gypsum (drywall) is actually a pretty effective fire barrier due to the fact that it's 21% water. When exposed to high temperature and the drywall reaches the boiling point of water, steam will start to be driven out of the drywall and the temperature rise will plateau during the phase change of the water. The problem however is that if the drywall is inside the safe during a fire, it will just produce superheated steam which probably will hurt your gun stocks anyway so it's really not as effective as it would be if it were on the outside your safe.

I have yet to find a gun safe with the perfect fire insulation but the closest I have found yet is the Sturdy Safe design and it is far superior that what I'm seeing from the competition. If the numbers in the above example are close for Drylight (I suspect they might be generous though), an equivalent BF design would need 5 inches of Drylight on the body and 2.5 inches on the door to equal the Sturdy Safe which really doesn't leave much room for guns for a safe of those dimensions.

I'm confident this is true. However, there's also the expense of installing the product. The labor, machining, and double walling of the safe to prepare it for fill is a much more expensive process.

Remember Frank, Sturdy also has to machine and install their inner liner too. Also, how do you know that there aren't any voids in the insulation layer of the AMSEC for their insulation fill method? At least when the fire lining of the Sturdy safe is installed, it is clear that the insulation is present on all surfaces before the lining is installed.

I think from what I have read you get the most bang for your buck from your safes.

rescueswimmer, I absolutely agree with your statement.

Of the many things I like about Sturdy Safe, one of my favorites is how flexible they in customizing their gun safes.

For instance, if I were planning to install a new Sturdy gun safe in corner of a room and bolt it to the floor. I could have them as an option double plate the exposed side and ask them to double plate the roof as well. I could add a stainless steel torch resistant barrier over the locking mechanism and add a drill resistant hard plate over the lock that would make it difficult for even a locksmith to get in. All of this with fire-lining on a 60H, 36W, 27D safe would still be less than $2900 delivered to my garage. My feeling is why put 1/2" or even 1/4" of steel on sides that are unlikely to be attacked. In this example with a customized Sturdy Safe, you have 3/8" of steel on sides exposed to the thief and a door that would present a serious challenge to even an expert to open and all of this at a price that is much less (1/2 the price in some cases) as the competition.

 

[a1abdj]

If the numbers in the above example are close for Drylight (I suspect they might be generous though), an equivalent BF design would need 5 inches of Drylight on the body and 2.5 inches on the door to equal the Sturdy Safe which really doesn't leave much room for guns for a safe of those dimensions.

I don't know what example you're looking at, I probably missed it amongst all the talking.

AMSEC uses the drylight in their smaller BF series safes that do pass the most strict testing available to safes today, and they're built in a very similar fashion to the larger gun safes. They certainly aren't using 5" of fill, and they have a UL tag.

Out of the thousands (literally) of safes with UL ratings, from hundreds (literally) of safe manufacturers, why can't anybody point me to just one that uses ceramic as it's primary insulator? If it worked as advertised, certainly somebody would be using it.

The irony of all this debate about what is the best insulation for fire protection in a gun safe is that the best insulation is no insulation at all.

I agree, but for a different reason.

Gun safes are to secure firearms from misuse, theft, or tampering. You could eliminate the ineffective insulations, and add a bit of steel to them. This would keep the weight the same, and add some security.

If you want a fireproof safe, then you should be shopping for a fire rated safe, not a gun safe. When you want to drive nails you buy a hammer, not a screw driver.

Remember Frank, Sturdy also has to machine and install their inner liner too.

Ceramic wool comes in rolls/sheets, and is merely cut to fit. In Sturdy's case, they do rivet a cover plate to enclose it. It's not much more complex than installing gypsum board into safes.

Also, how do you know that there aren't any voids in the insulation layer of the AMSEC for their insulation fill method? At least when the fire lining of the Sturdy safe is installed, it is clear that the insulation is present on all surfaces before the lining is installed.

That's the expensive part of the process. Pressurized pumping systems and big machines that vibrate the safe during the fill process.

Again, this isn't some whizbang idea that somebody just thought of. This process has been used for a very long time, by every reputable manufacturer, for all of their safes that carry a UL rating (and many that don't).

Of the many things I like about Sturdy Safe, one of my favorites is how flexible they in customizing their gun safes.

Almost every major manufacturer (minus some of the gun safe companies) will build safes to order.

My feeling is why put 1/2" or even 1/4" of steel on sides that are unlikely to be attacked.

Although good in theory, a safe is only as strong as its weakest link. The manufacturer has no way of knowing how you will install or secure the safe once in your possession, so they have to assume that it won't be correct.

If you need a 3/8" plate safe (between a B and C rate), then you should order the entire safe that way. In commercial settings, insurance companies demand this.

I could add a stainless steel torch resistant barrier over the locking mechanism and add a drill resistant hard plate over the lock that would make it difficult for even a locksmith to get in.

How do you cut stainless steel?

As far as the hard plate, I haven't met one I can't get through yet (and usually pretty quickly). Aside from that, there are certainly ways around it, even if it did prove to be difficult.

There is some pretty nasty plate on the market, and most of the worst aren't even metal or alloy. Some of the worst hard plates are high tech composites, and they are patented and owned by the big high security manufacturers (and only used in their safes).

I have already mentioned the simple truth above. Gun safes are great for an average gun collection. They will keep the kids out, and they will keep your casual smash and grab burglars out. Most do not offer much security, and most do not offer much fire protection. I can post photos that prove these statements.

 

[lebowski]

Post some pics

 

[a1abdj]

I will post some photos, but you have to understand that there are others that I can not share in a public venue. Some of them show portions of a safe that I wouldn't want somebody who's up to no good to see. Others have been sent to me by others in the safe business, and I do not have permission to post them in a public venue.

This photo has been made a bit famous, and you may have seen it before. I originally posted it several years ago, and it has spread around the internet. It is a Liberty with a 12 gauge body, and the damage was caused in under 5 minutes using a axe & sledge hammer.



This is a typical fire rated gun safe. You can tell that the fire was bad, but not a complete burn down. The safe is still standing, and the floor of the home is still sound. Most of the framing is still standing, although burnt. From the outside, it doesn't look so bad.



Although it doesn't look so bad from the outside, this is the typical view on the inside.



The gypsum board usually dries up and crumbles within the safe. Most gun safe have no real structure aside from the gypsum walls, so most of the contents end up at the bottom of the safe (after they're cooked on the shelves).

To compare, here's a cheap Sentry safe that carries a UL fire rating. This safe was exposed to worse fire than the gun safe. In fact, it burned on the second floor, and ended up in the basement.



It's exterior condition is pretty similar to that of the gun safe. It's common for the handles and dials to melt off.

Here are the contents:

 

[ttheel]

That pretty much makes the average fire resistant gunsafe look like a waste of $$$$. The top picture explains why most experts say to go with a minimum of 10 gauge steel.

 

[lebowski]

Thanks Frank, that's helpful.

I remember that first pic. The second and third are some of the reasons I chose to forego fire protection in my Sturdy safe. Per your and Terry's advice I keep documents (passport, etc.) in a small sentry fire safe inside the sturdy safe.


Per the original post, while I'm not an engineer and not an expert by any means, like most of you I did a fair amount of research and consulted a number of people who know more than me (including some here) to educate myself as much as possible before making an informed purchase. Like many of you, I narrowed it down between the AMSEC BF and the Sturdy safe. I chose the Sturdy for a few reasons, the most important of which is it came in a packaging that allowed me to fit a larger safe in the spot I wanted to put it (with the BF, I would have been relegated to a smaller safe as their 6" models were too wide to fit into my office). The bottom line is, I think both are far and away the best two products in their price range and I don't think you can go wrong with either. I also think the customer service you'd get from either Frank (a1abdg) or Alyssa/Terry at Sturdy safe is also excellent. Yes, they are both biased sources in that they sell the respective offerings, but I do think both are honest and were helpful and extremely patient when it came to answering the barrage of stupid questions I addressed to them.

 

[adirondack]

Out of the thousands (literally) of safes with UL ratings, from hundreds (literally) of safe manufacturers, why can't anybody point me to just one that uses ceramic as it's primary insulator? If it worked as advertised, certainly somebody would be using it.

I think the reason for not seeing ceramic fiber used in UL listed fire safes is that what would be the point of a safe company using an expensive material such as ceramic fiber when they can get away with a cheaper material to achieve the modest goal of maintaining a moderately low interior temperature without consideration for weight or in most cases moisture.

To find companies and applications that use a premium material such as ceramic fiber as a fire insulator, you have to look for applications where a light weight and dry material that has excellent fire insulating capabilities is needed: that application is NFPA 75 class 125 – four hour magnetic media modular vaults. As you know Frank, NFPA 75 class 125 is pretty much as high a fire rating as you are likely to find because not only do you have to keep the temperature below 125F but also the humidity level has to stay at a low level as well which usually rules out most commonly used fire insulators. Virtually all of the premium modular NFPA 75 class 125 fire rated vaults I found during my search use ceramic fiber for their primary insulation and even Wikipedia states the same info.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe#Class_125)

Room-sized fireproof vaults

For larger volumes of heat-sensitive materials, a modular room-sized vault is much more economical than purchasing and storing many fire rated safes. Typically these room-sized vaults are utilized by corporations, government agencies and off-site storage service firms. Fireproof vaults are rated up to Class 125-4 Hour for large data storage applications. These vaults utilize ceramic fiber, a high temperature industrial insulating material, as the core of their modular panel system.

So here are a couple modular vault companies using ceramic fiber as their insulation:

http://www.veritrust.net/OffsiteVaultProtection/Vault/UniqueConstruction.html

http://www.firelock.com/overview1.htm

http://www.firelock.com/_enlarge.asp?filename=ph_vaultpanels

 

[jimbabwe]

adirondack, I like your post very much. I like science. My wife is studying for a B.S. in Civil Engineering and I have taken some engineering courses years ago in college.

Let me pick your brain on this one: how much steel do you think is in the AMSEC RF6528? It's 72"x25"x29.5" and weighs 3,455 pounds?

I'm considering it and a Sturdy Safe.

I value your opinion.

Thanks,

Jim

 

[heeler]

I'm not adirondack and I am certainly no engineer but if you can afford the RF6528 then I would not hesitate a second to order it as it is vastly superior over the Sturdy or Amsec BF.

 

[jimbabwe]

Thanks for your two cents, heeler. I think it should be vastly superior, too!

 

[a1abdj]

I think the reason for not seeing ceramic fiber used in UL listed fire safes is that what would be the point of a safe company using an expensive material such as ceramic fiber when they can get away with a cheaper material to achieve the modest goal of maintaining a moderately low interior temperature without consideration for weight or in most cases moisture.

Because I don't think it's cheaper. Cast materials may be cheaper, but the tooling and labor required to use them is more expensive. Fiberglass may be a more expensive material, but it cost much less to install.

I don't think these companies are saving any money, I think there's using what's been proven to work best.

To find companies and applications that use a premium material such as ceramic fiber as a fire insulator, you have to look for applications where a light weight and dry material that has excellent fire insulating capabilities is needed: that application is NFPA 75 class 125 – four hour magnetic media modular vaults. As you know Frank, NFPA 75 class 125 is pretty much as high a fire rating as you are likely to find because not only do you have to keep the temperature below 125F but also the humidity level has to stay at a low level as well which usually rules out most commonly used fire insulators. Virtually all of the premium modular NFPA 75 class 125 fire rated vaults I found during my search use ceramic fiber for their primary insulation and even Wikipedia states the same info.

You're closer, but still no cigar.

Data safes offer two layers of protection, the outer shell (safe or file cabinet), and an insert. This is why data safes have an outer and an inner door. The primary protection against fire is the outer shell (350 degree interior temp at 1,700+ degree outer temp), and the secondary protection against heat & moisture is the insert (125 degree interior temp, blocks humidity from outer shell, at 350 degree outer temp).

In your example, not only is the primary insulation still a cast material, but the ceramic secondary insualtion is carrying a relatively light load. Data safes are expensive safes as well. A double door unit usually retails in the 5 figure range, so again, spending money on a more expensive insulation wouldn't be an issue if it was better than what was currently being used.

Entire rooms, vaults, or modular vaults are a totally different animal. In the example of a safe, you are looking to keep a fairly small unit, surrounded by heat, cool inside of a very small area. With a vault you are looking to keep a very large unit, usually not totally surrounded by heat, cool with a huge interior volume.

For larger volumes of heat-sensitive materials, a modular room-sized vault is much more economical than purchasing and storing many fire rated safes. Typically these room-sized vaults are utilized by corporations, government agencies and off-site storage service firms. Fireproof vaults are rated up to Class 125-4 Hour for large data storage applications. These vaults utilize ceramic fiber, a high temperature industrial insulating material, as the core of their modular panel system.

They also build "vaults" out of cinderblock and drywall for records storage that meet fire standards.

The vast majority of vaults, be they for records or valuables, are still built of of concrete and steel (including modular vault panels).

I'm not saying fiberglass wouldn't work. I'm simply saying it probably doesn't work as well as what everybody else is using, because if it did, some of them would be using it.

 

[adirondack]

how much steel do you think is in the AMSEC RF6528? It's 72"x25"x29.5" and weighs 3,455 pounds?

Jimbabwe, to be honest, there are too many unknowns for me to even get a ballpark estimate but maybe a1abdj (Frank) has an idea.

Calculating the amount of steel from what we know is easy enough. The outer shell is 11ga steel (1/8" or 0.125") and the inner shell is either 14 or 16 gauge based on comments made by some here but I suspect it's probably 16ga since the outer shell's thickness had been reduced for what I would guess to be a cost savings measure. So with this info, just calculate the surface area (height x width + depth x height etc for all sides) of the outside (not including the door area of course) then multiple by thickness 0.125" and that will give you the volume of steel used in the outer shell; the density of steel is something like 0.28Lb per cubic inch (I'm late for work or I'd look it up but I think that's right) Remember the inner liner will be smaller because of the insulation thickness which is something like 2" or so (best to draw pictures as you recall from your engineering classes). The door has at least a 1/2" plate but I seem to recall reading that it might be a little thinner for the taller model. Then you'll have to estimate the weight of linkages, locking bolts etc which is where accuracy of the estimate will start to suffer. Good luck.

In your example, not only is the primary insulation still a cast material, but the ceramic secondary insualtion is carrying a relatively light load. Data safes are expensive safes as well. A double door unit usually retails in the 5 figure range, so again, spending money on a more expensive insulation wouldn't be an issue if it was better than what was currently being used.

Frank, my example is modular media storage vaults compliant with NFPA 75 class 125. I haven't read through the whole standard but it's intention is for storage of temperature and moisture sensitive data storage devices. The walls of the modular vaults are basically ceramic fiber sandwiched between steel. Yes they through a layer of drywall up to make it look pretty put all the fire rating is based on the ceramic fiber insulation. I agree time rating varies based on the dimensions of the room but a room size of 8' x 8' still has a 125F two hour fire rating and easily passes 350F for four hours. The rating also is based on all surfaces being exposed to high heat as well. So if ceramic fiber is used in the toughest application there is based on UL fire rating criteria, it certainly will preform well in a gun safe or any other safe.

(Sorry for any typos)

 

[a1abdj]

how much steel do you think is in the AMSEC RF6528? It's 72"x25"x29.5" and weighs 3,455 pounds?

Not much. The RF6528 is a composite safe. The fill material is what gives it its strength. A safe that passes the same UL test, made out of A36 steel (the same as gun safes) would have a 1" solid plate wall, and a door consisting of 1" solid A36 plate, and an additional 1/2" of maganese steel alloy.

So if ceramic fiber is used in the toughest application there is based on UL fire rating criteria, it certainly will preform well in a gun safe or any other safe.

Yet it's not used on UL rated safes as a primary insulation (UL-72 for data storage). Comparing the science behind a vault is completely different than a free standing safe. Even a small vault (say 10x10x8 interior has 800 cubic feet of air space contained inside it (air is a good insulator). The largest double door data safes have only 20 cubic feet or so of air space.

Let's look at your oven. It's quite easy to get the interior temperature up to several hundred degrees. If you open the door, do you think you can get your kitchen that hot? Regardless of how long your run it, it will never happen. The opposite is true of safes. Small interior volumes will heat up high and fast, large interior volumes heat up slow and low.

If you want to prove to me that a safe using ceramic insulations as its primary insulator will pass UL testing, then show me a safe with a UL tag that uses it as its primary insulator. If you want to prove to me that a safe using ceramic insulation will simply insulate equally as well as a safe using cast insulations, then lets see some photos of ceramic lined safes that have been in severe fires.

To expand my search, I recently placed an inquiry on a safe tech forum that includes techs from all over the world. As of yet, none of them have been able to identify any safes from their countries that are using ceramics as a primary insulator either.