Jump to content

Deceptive advertising of gun safes

From Consumer Rights Wiki

🧽🫧This article needs cleanup. It contains sources and content but lacks proper formatting/structure.

More info ▼

Common issues include not following the correct preload outline (incident, company, product), references that don't use <ref></ref> or Cite web, leftover "WIP" markers, or long quotes not wrapped in Quote. You can help by applying the relevant preload sections, converting raw URLs into proper citations, and removing editor notes.

Products referred to as "gun safes" are usually not "true safes" (UL 687)[1], but "residential security containers" (UL 1037).[2] The distinction comes from the certification/rating system established by Underwriter’s Laboratories, an independent testing company.[3] This misleading language is just one of the multiple deceptive advertising practices used in the residential gun safe industry.

Background

[edit | edit source]

Underwriter's Laboratories certifications available include (in ascending order of security levels): UL RSC Level I, UL RSC Level II, UL TL-15, UL TL-30, and UL TL-30x6. TLTR-variant ratings are also available. UL testing involves one or more people using specific sets of tools to gain physical access to a safe in a certain amount of time.[4][5][6]

Other security ratings may be seen on products such as AmSec's B-Class and C-Class[7]. AmSec claims the standards are set by the "insurance industry" but does not provide links to any published documentation that the consumer could use to verify what B-Class and C-Class actually mean. Additionally, unknown security ratings could be based on factors that do not have bearing in real-life scenarios that the consumer expects their product to perform. (Example: AmSec's product NARCO3824 is B-Class and the product description uses phrases like "it’s extremely difficult to break in or tamper with". However, NARCO3824 is 11 gauge steel which can be cut with handheld tools.[8][9])

The existence of a "rating" or "standard" does not guarantee a product's performance. The Titanic's lifeboats were "to regulation", yet ~1,500 people still lost their lives. It is up to the consumer to understand what a product's claim actually means, and how that affects the attributes the consumer wants for a product.

Companies Affected

[edit | edit source]
  • Liberty Safe
  • Cannon Safe
  • Browning Safes
  • American Security
  • Winchester Safes
  • Remington (is it just Remington? Can not find a website that is not a brand licensee)
  • Stack-On
  • Cabela's

[Incident]

[edit | edit source]

Incidents to expand on:

  • Fire rating (self-certification, fire-safe does not mean heat/steam/firehose safe)
  • Performative features (internal hinges, showy linkage, fancy descriptions of bad locks)[10]
  • Detrimental features (door gaps, handle location, electronics, moisture-absorbing material, etc.)
  • Made in America=assembled in America which obfuscates the quality of parts (usually the locks)
  • Deceptive gun # capacity
  • Detrimental or poor features presented as positives (door handle location, gauge thickness) [11]
  • Containers with security so poor that it cannot withstand a theft attack from a child (amazon desk safes)[12]

ToDo:

  • Embed side-by-side snapshots? (snapshot the fire-rating of a product from the company's website, next to a picture of that safe with rusted-out guns inside from surviving a fire)
  • Link to the Liberty Safe article on consumerrights.wiki
  • Create a guide about how to navigate the above incidents?

Key Takeaway

[edit | edit source]

Industry-wide advertising practices mislead the consumer into thinking safes perform better than they actually do.


See also

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ "UL 687 Ed. 15-2011 - Standard for Burglary-Resistant Safes - Published Date: July 1, 2025".
  2. ↑ "UL 1037 Ed. 6-2016 - Standard for Antitheft Alarms and Devices - Published Date: August 24, 2023".
  3. ↑ "Anti-theft Device Testing and Certification | UL Solutions". Archived from the original on January 1, 2026.
  4. ↑ "Honest Gun Safe Reviews, Trusted Since 2013 - Gun Safe Reviews Guy".
  5. ↑ "Underwriters Laboratories Safe Ratings | American Security (AMSEC)". Archived from the original on November 7, 2025.
  6. ↑ "Standard 1037 - Standard for Antitheft Alarms and Devices". Archived from the original on October 29, 2015.
  7. ↑ "Burglary Safe Ratings Explained | American Security (AMSEC)". Archived from the original on October 6, 2025.
  8. ↑ "Three ways to cut sheet metal for any budget". Archived from the original on 2026-02-23.
  9. ↑ "What's the Best Way to Cut Thick Steel?". Archived from the original on 2026-02-23.
  10. ↑ "Good vs. Bad Gun Safe Linkage Designs | RSC and TL Safes | Sturdy Gun Safe". Archived from the original on 2026-02-23.
  11. ↑ "CUTTING OPEN GUN SAFE - Great way to end 2020." Archived from the original on 2026-02-23.
  12. ↑ "[1571] The DUMBEST "Safe" Design I've Ever Seen! (Toriexon)". Archived from the original on 2025-09-08.
[edit | edit source]

Videos of people breaking into safes:

Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Deceptive_advertising_of_gun_safes&oldid=64858"