Gun Safe Advise
- Thread starter zer010gic
- Start date
I remember it well. You were giving the same bad advice there as you are here. Neither ceramic insulation, nor gypsum board insulation, will provide proper fire protection from fire.
You can post photos of safes using these insulations that have survived. So can I. It's called luck. If these insulations worked effectively, they would be found in UL listed safes.
Who's being dishonest? A manufacturer has their product tested however they want it tested, and post a sticker showing their results on the door. So long as the sticker doesn't say UL on it, it's not dishonest.
Consumers do not properly educate themselves on safe construction, ratings, etc., and just assume the manufacturer has their best interests in mind. That's why I'm here.
I don't see many gun safe manufacturers posting "big numbers" on their safes. Most gun safes are being tested in the 1200 degree range for an hour. UL is testing safes at 1700 degrees for an hour.
The heat transfer may be the same, but the end results certainly are not.
In the case of a furnace, you have a heat inside of an enclosed area, and a large air volume outside. In the case of a safe, you have a lot of heat outside, and a small volume of air inside.
A 1,200 degree fire outside of a safe is going to heat the air inside of the safe faster than a 1,200 degree furnace is going to heat up the room its in.
They just show one situation. Liberty shows photos of a safe that "survived a California wild fire". Just luck. I can show you safes that were UL listed for 4 hours that were just about melted in the same fire.
It is true that ceramic insulations will give you some protection. So will gypsum board, sawdust, cardboard, styrofoam, and even just plain old air. The problem is that none of these insulation perform as well as cast insulations, which is why real fire safes are built the way they are.
Adirondack
New member
No ceramic fiber will perform much better that's why it is used exclusively in structures with the highest UL fire rating there is which is media vaults class 125F - 4 hour or keeping the interior less than 125 degrees F with less than 80% humidity for an exterior temperature to just over 2000F. And, there isn't a safe on the market and definitely not an exclusively cast insulated safe (they have to put an inner liner of fiber or foam in those to achieve the class 125F rating as you know a1abdj) that can achieve the four hour rating.
http://www.firelock.com/overview1.htm
Ceramic fiber panel walls:
"High temperature protection:
Vault panels constructed from spun ceramic material capable of withstanding temperatures well above 2000°F for five hours of testing."
It is not used in all structures. It is used in some.
Let's look at that big room you just posted a photo of, and lets compare the exposed surface area to the volume of air inside of it. Then, let's look at the surface area of a safe, and compare that to the volume of air inside of it.
Just because a material works well for one use, does not mean it would work well for another.
By the way, that door shown in your photo uses cast insulation, and would have the same, or better rating than that of the modular panels.
Sure there is. I don't know if they still build them (I'll have to look), but you could buy a 4 hour 125 degree safe that was all cast. It was not rated for data, due to humidity.
What you're confusing here is the specific purpose of a data rated safe, which has the additional burden of controlling humidity. All data safes are simply a cast fire insulated safe with an additional ceramic lined insert sealed to prevent the moisture from the cast safe to enter.
In this case you have a safe, using cast insulation, that keeps the interior temperature at or below 350 degrees when faced with a 1700 degree or higher fire. The ceramic insert then keeps its interior below 150/125 degrees when faced with the external temperature of 350 degrees.
You can always find a single example, and twist it to fit your explanation. I can show you hundreds or even thousands that fit mine.
We are not talking about vaults or data safes. We're talking about safes somebody would place in their homes.
precision_shooter
New member
WOW, I'm learning more about safes than I ever thought I would. I will be in the market for a safe in the next year or so and will bookmark this thread to reference.
Adirondack
New member
Okay, let's look at it but to get a true ratio of insulation needed for volume protected, we should be looking at the volume of insulation per volume of material protected.
Here is a media safe with the highest rating I could find class 125F - 3 hour.
http://www.fireking.com/adesco_safes_data_3hour.html
It's external dimensions are 59 3/4" x 32 1/16 x 31 " and internal dimensions are 43 5/8" x 18 5/8" x 16 1/16". So the amount of insulation is the difference between the total volume of the safe verses the volume of protected material. So external volume = 59.75" x 32.0625" x 31" = 59,387 Cu Inches and internal volume 43.625" x 18.625" x 16.0625" = 13,051 Cu Inches. That makes the amount of insulation = external volume - internal volume = 59,387 - 13,051 = 46336 cu inches of insulation protecting 13,051 Cu Inches of material for a ratio of 13,051/46,336 = 0.2817 which says you need about 4 times of volume of insulation as compared to volume of protected material.
So looking at the media vault that uses exclusively ceramic fiber. I couldn't find dimensions for a 3 hour rated vault so I had to use the higher rated vault with a 4 hour rating. Here's a quote from Firelock
http://www.firelock.com/mediasecurity3.htm
"FIRELOCK is also unique in that our vaults provide a Class 125 Fire Rating for a minimum of two hours, but as vaults increase in size, the vault rating increases in duration. Our 28' x 28' x 8' vault will deliver a Class 125 Four-Hour Rating. This is four times the protection that a typically constructed data safe can provide."
So from the photo shown earlier, it appears that the vault walls are around 6" deep; that would make the exterior dimensions 29' x 29' x 9'. So the volume of the entire structure - the interior volume is (29' x 29' x 9') - (28' x 28' x 8') = 1297 Cu Feet of insulation material. So interior protected volume divided by insulation volume = (28' x 28' x 8') / 1297 Cu Feet = 4.836
This says that per cubic volume of ceramic fiber almost 5 times that volume can be protected. That would mean it is 4.826/0.2817 = 17.13 times better than the media safe with the cast insulation and inner liner of something else.
Last edited:
As always, you try to make things much more difficult than they really are. I don't know if this is intended to confuse people or not.
Let's start with the surface area exposed to heat, and the volume of air inside of the unit. I will use your two specific examples. I'm not going to post all of the math (feel free to double check my figures), just the important parts. I'm also going to round off the numbers a bit to make it easier to see.
The safe you mentioned has an outside surface area (not counting the floor, because we're not going to count the floor of the vault either) of 59.5 square feet. This surface is the amount of surface exposed to heat. The interior has a volume of 7.6 cubic feet. This means each square foot of surface exposed to heat is keeping .13 cubic feet of space cool.
The vault you mention has a surface area of 1,885 square feet exposed to heat. The interior volume (28x28x8) is 6,272 cubic feet. This means each square foot of surface exposed to heat is keeping 3.3 cubic feet of space cool.
I'm going to stop you now before you say "look, the vault has to keep much more space cool", because that's the opposite of the truth. A smaller air space will heat up much faster than larger air space when exposed to the same level of heat. A .13 cubic foot space will heat much faster than a 3.3 cubic foot space.
The vault has 25 times the air inside of it in a direct comparison of surface area. This means the safe has to do 25 times the work the vault does.
To put this into real simple terms. Try turning your oven on to 400 degrees, opening the door, and seeing how long it takes to heat your kitchen to 400 degrees. Then to compare, with your oven at room temperature, burn your house down, and see how long it takes the interior of the oven to reach 400 degrees.
Let's start with the surface area exposed to heat, and the volume of air inside of the unit. I will use your two specific examples. I'm not going to post all of the math (feel free to double check my figures), just the important parts. I'm also going to round off the numbers a bit to make it easier to see.
The safe you mentioned has an outside surface area (not counting the floor, because we're not going to count the floor of the vault either) of 59.5 square feet. This surface is the amount of surface exposed to heat. The interior has a volume of 7.6 cubic feet. This means each square foot of surface exposed to heat is keeping .13 cubic feet of space cool.
The vault you mention has a surface area of 1,885 square feet exposed to heat. The interior volume (28x28x8) is 6,272 cubic feet. This means each square foot of surface exposed to heat is keeping 3.3 cubic feet of space cool.
I'm going to stop you now before you say "look, the vault has to keep much more space cool", because that's the opposite of the truth. A smaller air space will heat up much faster than larger air space when exposed to the same level of heat. A .13 cubic foot space will heat much faster than a 3.3 cubic foot space.
The vault has 25 times the air inside of it in a direct comparison of surface area. This means the safe has to do 25 times the work the vault does.
To put this into real simple terms. Try turning your oven on to 400 degrees, opening the door, and seeing how long it takes to heat your kitchen to 400 degrees. Then to compare, with your oven at room temperature, burn your house down, and see how long it takes the interior of the oven to reach 400 degrees.
Last edited:
Adirondack
New member
As per the testing standard, heat is applied to all sides including the floor for both the vault and safe.
I know the example is an apples to oranges comparison but you asked to see it.
Steam especially a high pressure superheated steam that's likely to be in a gun safe protected by gypsum or even concrete can damage the contents as well so it should be a consideration when selecting a gun safe or any safe/vault for that matter.
Ok. Including the floor of each unit, each square foot of surface area exposed to heat on the safe is protecting .11 cubic feet of air space inside. Each square foot of surface area exposed to heat on the vault is protecting 2.3 cubic feet of air space inside.
Instead of the safe having to perform 25 times better in the previous example, it only has to perform 20 times better if heat is applied to all 6 sides instead of 5.
It's not apples and oranges at all. I'm assuming that the ceramic insulation in the safe will perform the same as the ceramic insulation in a vault wall. Inch for inch, the ceramics are doing the exact same job.
In your examples, the safe has about 3.5" of cast fill on each wall, in addition to 3.5" of ceramic insulation. The vault has 6" of insulation. This means that the 3.5" of fill in the safe is now doing the job of 2.5" of ceramic in the vault.
We know that by your very own example, that the safe is doing 20 times the work, and the ceramics are doing the same job, therefore I can make a wild guess that it's the cast insulation doing the heavy lifting (as I have always said).
3.5" of cast insulation (in this case) is 20 times as effective as 2.5" of ceramic. If my math is correct, it would take 14" of ceramic insulation to accomplish the same task as 1" of cast insulation.
Of course all of these numbers aren't based on much fact, just your examples. The do however prove what I have been saying all along. Cast insulations are more effective than ceramic insulations which is why every UL listed safe uses them, and very few manufacturers use it at all, except as a secondary insulation.
Gypsum will let off moisture in fire. Many of the cast insulations in document safes will let off moisture. As you get into fire/burglary safes, and UL listed burglary safes, the insulation is actually a burglary barrier as well, and tends to have a much lower moisture content.
You can also get external moisture into a safe during a fire. The insulation isn't your only enemy when you have fire hoses involved.
Adirondack
New member
I guess I'm not following your logic a1abdj. The volume of both containers is published so you can figure out how much is liner, shell and insulation of each and how efficient they are at protecting the volume within each container. To me it appears that the vault with the ceramic fiber is 17 times better than the safe based on how much material is needed to protect each volume. I couldn't find any specifications on the materials used on that fire safe so if you say it's ceramic fiber in the inner liner and it's 3.5" thick I guess I'm going to have to trust you on that but at least from the photo it doesn't appear to be much more than 2" thick at best.
Of course all of this is a moot point since the specifications of ceramic fiber, high temperature glass and other insulation materials including insulating concrete type materials are published so it's easy to figure out what insulation is better for preventing heat transfer.
Of course all of this is a moot point since the specifications of ceramic fiber, high temperature glass and other insulation materials including insulating concrete type materials are published so it's easy to figure out what insulation is better for preventing heat transfer.
It's not my logic, it's the real world of safe construction.
In both situations, we are looking at the same heat source. 1 square foot of surface area. The safe has a small volume of air inside, the vault has a large volume of air inside.
Let's say you take 2 identical candles. Place one inside of a shoe box, and the other inside of a refrigerator box. Which box will heat faster?
A small space will heat much, much faster than a large space. The insulation on a large container has to work less than the insulation on a small container (even though most safes are build the same regardless of their size).
The vault is not better because it protects more volume. The safe is better because it offers the same protection to much, much less.
I'm going to chime in on this discussion, not because I feel I'm and expert in any way, but because I find it very interesting. I value both point of views and your expertise.
Just because safe manufacturers stick with a certain type of insulation does not automatically preclude its better or best. Just doing something for many years also does not mean its the best way. This applies to all facets of life.
If you assume fiber insulation is better, why would companies not make the switch? I can think of many, but heres a few.
#1. Old habits die hard. Maybe an overused expression but true.
#2. They are already set up and tooled to do it this way and change costs money.
#3. The marketplace is not screaming for change. Heck the average Joe doesn't even take that much notice of fire ratings.
#4. Why change and admit someone else was doing it better all along.
I'm sure their are more reasons and I bring these up because I see resistance to change all the time in my occupation--agriculture. People plowed for years until finally no-till took over. Combines used conventional threshing systems for years until a few changed to rotary combines and now its very hard to find a combine with a cylinder. I could go on and on. I think we all could in relation to our own areas of expertise.
Just because safe manufacturers stick with a certain type of insulation does not automatically preclude its better or best. Just doing something for many years also does not mean its the best way. This applies to all facets of life.
If you assume fiber insulation is better, why would companies not make the switch? I can think of many, but heres a few.
#1. Old habits die hard. Maybe an overused expression but true.
#2. They are already set up and tooled to do it this way and change costs money.
#3. The marketplace is not screaming for change. Heck the average Joe doesn't even take that much notice of fire ratings.
#4. Why change and admit someone else was doing it better all along.
I'm sure their are more reasons and I bring these up because I see resistance to change all the time in my occupation--agriculture. People plowed for years until finally no-till took over. Combines used conventional threshing systems for years until a few changed to rotary combines and now its very hard to find a combine with a cylinder. I could go on and on. I think we all could in relation to our own areas of expertise.
There may be better materials out there, they just haven't been thought of yet.
Your other questions have different answers, depending on whether you're talking about real safes with UL ratings, or gun safes that are unrated.
A few gun safe companies have. Ceramic fiber does provide some protection, and since the safe isn't being UL rated, it doesn't matter.
Real safe companies haven't, because a ceramic insulated safe will not pass the test in the form of a marketable safe.
Real safe manufacturers have been using cast insulations for over 150 years. These habits are definately old.
Gun safes have been around since the 1980s, and originally, were not insulated against fire at all. Many of the manufacturers act as if they are doing things that have never been done, when in fact, they have all been done many times before by real safe manufacturers.
Cast insulations cost the manufacturer more. The process is more complex, requires more equipment, and is much more time consuming.
Ceramic insulations may cost more for the actual material, but the process is very easy, requires little or no equipment, and is very fast.
I think the average Joe notices the ratings, but does not understand what they mean.
As far as gun safes go, this is a bad thing. Many people are relying on their gun safes to provide protection that they simply can't offer.
Real safes are a different story. Not only are consumers interested in the fire ratings, but if the safe carries any sort of commercial insurance, the insurer will definately be interested.
The safe industry is an interesting creature. Some design aspects are old, and yet they are so good nothing better has ever come along. Cast insulations, and combination lock design are two great examples.
On the flip side, changes are constantly being made to security features, especially burglary barriers. They have to. As new and better tools are designed, and burglars gain knowledge, new features must be used to maintain security levels.
Thanks alabdj for your reply. You certainly have convincing arguements. I perhaps worded some of my response poorly. I think most people do give up on the fire rating debate and simply decide on price, ease of installation or availability. I have to say I have been put off by the quality of all the safes I have seen first hand. I won't mention names but they represent the top manufacturers of gun safes. Have not been able to put my hands on a amsec or sturdy but the specs seem to support that they are better made. Safes I have looked at sure are purtiy but when really looking close you can tell they are cheaply and poorly made. I just will not settle for this.
Wouldn't it be great if some independent entity put a few gun safes in the same environment and compared their heat resistance and burgular proof abilities. Would it really be so hard to provide a subjective test?
Wouldn't it be great if some independent entity put a few gun safes in the same environment and compared their heat resistance and burgular proof abilities. Would it really be so hard to provide a subjective test?
Adirondack
New member
Heat is evenly distributed to all sides of both containers during testing so the vault has much more energy to resist in order to pass the test than the smaller safe.
I do admit that the natural air convection in the much larger vault does help delay the temperature rise within the chamber but I did say it is an apples to oranges comparison. The interior of the vault can hold everything used in its construction 4 times over but the safe can't even hold a quarter of it's own constructing material so for efficient fire protection of a large collection, the ceramic fiber lined vault is far better than the safe.
I think those are some of the reasons north1. It's also expensive as compared to drywall or concrete. The cost of the insulation alone for what Sturdy puts on it's gun safe is almost 200 dollars. Add to that the 14ga liner that needs to be fabricated and then the labor required for installation all of which doesn't leave you much room to make any money on the option. Compare that to fire rated 5/8" drywall that can be bought at retail for less than 9 dollars a sheet or concrete that is about $100 per yard right now (no where near that needed in an average safe).
Even Amsec admitted when asked by someone who called from an earlier discussion that they don't use the same insulating material on their fire safes as they do for their other safes. Their fire safes use a vermiculite concrete mix whereas their other security or burglary and fire safes use a denser mix which is great for security but bad for preventing heat transfer. So to your point about the average Joe not taking much notice to the fire rating, I think these safe companies likely recognize that and are building their products with that in mind.
Last edited:
You almost half way admitted it there in your answer.
The vault is better than the safe. It's better than the safe because it uses one of the best insulations available. Air. Smaller safes have to use better man made insulations, because they do not have the air volume inside.
Using the same ceramic insulation, exclusively, in a smaller safe would yield faster and higher temperature rises than the exact same test performed on the large vault. This is exactly the same when other insulations are used, and is why many of those insulations are moisture bearing. Behind air, steam is also a great natural insulator.
In a nutshell, this is why the ceramics will not pass the UL test, and is why many other dry insulations will not pass it either.
So the ceramics cost $200, but what tooling does it take, and how much labor is required to install it?
The cements are goin to vary in price depending on how complex they are, but you are right in that they are not expensive (when talking about the fire rated versions).
But lets look at their construction. Sturdy builds a safe, puts in ceramic, and rivets in a liner. In a safe using cement, the body must be built in a hollow form. This form must prevent the wet cement from leaking out. This is a bit more complex than the Sturdy.
The cement must be mixed (cement plant on site), moved from the plant to the safe (pumps), placed into the safe properly (vibrating tables), then cured (large ovens). All of this equipment is expensive, requires maintenance, uses expensive power, requires labor to use each piece, and takes time.
Every type of safe is going to have a different mixture, and each manufacture's mixture will be different than the others when looking at the same type of safe. Different jobs equal different tools.
Dense insulating materials aren't always bad for preventing heat transfer. Even heavy plate steel safes, with no insulation at all, have survived fires.
Last edited:
Adirondack
New member
Well I sort of agree with you. For the three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation, air doesn't conduct heat well so it's good at reducing that (a vacuum doesn't conduct any heat) it does not however prevent radiant heat transfer and is also an active component for moving heat in convection.
Ceramic fiber is mostly air which is good for preventing conductive heat transfer. The fiber also blocks radiant heat transfer and prevents air from moving within the insulation layer to reduce convection heating.
I don't believe you are entirely accurate with your statement that safes don't use air in their fire safe insulation. Both expanded Vermiculite and Perlite which are the aggregates most often used in concrete to give them good insulation properties are mostly air. Also, these manufacturers (safe and builders) will use an aeration process to introduce air into their concrete mixes to reduce density and improve the insulation properties.
The moisture bearing insulation is used because of the phase change that has to occur with water to change to steam. When water changes to steam at atmospheric pressure, the temperature of the water will stay at 212F until the water if fully changed to steam. Do the experiment yourself, put a pot of water on the stove with a thermometer in the water and watch what happens to the temperature when it starts to boil, it won't rise above 212F until the water is gone. Gun safe manufacturers use gypsum drywall because it is 21% water and will go through a similar process when exposed to high heat the problem is the pressure will rise in a sealed gun safe making it less effective.
Most fire rated insulations do have air, encapsulated moisture, or both in their insulations. Sometimes, just looking at it will make it obvious. The insulation used in the AMSEC BF safes has air in it. The insulation slightly resembles lava rock.
They use it because it's cheap and easy, in addition to everything else you mentioned.
Gyspum based insulations are used (in their cast form) on some UL rated products. The problem with gypsum board is that it is not as consistent as cast. There are gaps, cuts, etc. that reduce its effectiveness.
I am sure you could get a gypsum board lined safe to pass UL testing. I am also sure you could get a ceramic lined safe to pass. The walls would simply have to be much thicker. Since the interior volume of the safe is at a premium, it simply doesn't make sense to build a safe with 10" walls when they can use the same materials they have been using for over a century to build walls half as thick.
armsmaster270
New member
Don't rely on the F.D being 6 miles away, if the house is out on another call you get the house farther away.