Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
I remember John Tann not providing fixing holes on their heavy safes (and they were seriously heavy). I was told, I think by Tann, that they didn't do this because so to do would compromise the safe. I never quite understood that- how one or two relatively small holes would cause a problem, but they knew more about the subject than I did!
Hello again Chubby,

For safes intended for export to the US where the UL 687 would apply, the testers would take advantage of any pre-prepared weaknesses such as anchoring tubes and spindle holes through the door.

Ridiculous as it may sound, by their X6 standards, a penetration of 2 square inches (1'6 dia.) which could allow fishing of a pre-determined amount of Bank Notes after the application of water would constitute a failure if within the specific test time. This same criteria of 2 sq.inches when applied to the door jamb takes some considerable design improvement costs over the norm to prevent when you consider that only a gap measuring 4" x ˝" wide would constitute a failure.

Their team of two operatives are extremely skilled in the use of the oxy-acet torch with a straight line 180° nozzle and substantial fluxing rods. (plus hose).