GunVault MicroVault Portable Gun Safe

[Guest confidence]

Was thinking of getting this and wondered if anybody has any experiences with them to report:

 

http://www.meijer.com/s/gunvault-microvault-portable-gun-safe/_/R-170419;jsessionid=898EF7F8FF9C8A53AFAEFBFCE7DB0227.instance01?CAWELAID=699987271&cagpspn=pla&cmpid=Google-G_US_Meijer_eCom_PLA_Sporting_Goods&gclid=CM_2t56Ej7gCFWFp7AodPjAAkQ&kpid=MV500#ReviewHeader

[gnmwilliams]

They're decent for keeping your guns out of little hands but don't expect them to be theft proof. Doesn't take much more than a paperclip to get some of their models open.

[2.ooohhh]

I have a GunVault NanoVault 200 mounted in each vehicle. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another product from them, though I went with the nano b/c I prefer no electronics on my smaller lock boxes. I keyed them all alike so I don't have to worry about which is in which vehicle.

[2.ooohhh]

They're decent for keeping your guns out of little hands but don't expect them to be theft proof. Doesn't take much more than a paperclip to get some of their models open.

 

 

Yeah, you have to pick models pretty carefully, and sometimes even spend a little more time and money to get them up to snuff. The video below has some very good info in it especially about dumping the cheap locks that come on most of these lock boxes and upgrading to a proper lock such as an abloy.

 

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/01/16/hacking-firearm-lock-boxes/

[xRUSTYx]

Not a big fan of gunvault ... They just don't seem that sturdy to me.  They are better than nothing, but if you want to spend money on something good, I'd go with the following:  http://www.fas1safe.com/product.sc;jsessionid=82EB74421E2639E3595CFD5FA2004F82.m1plqscsfapp06?productId=1&categoryId=1

[QuietDan]

Handy-dandy when cabled to the car for times when you have to go into a government office and you need to leave the pistol secure in the car. It won't last long in a determined assault, but it would slow down a smash and grab car thief.

 

Also, it's great for the night-stand ready-weapon in a house with children.

 

I have one strapped down in each of the family cars. Don't need one for the nightstand right now, probably will in a couple of years after the first granddaughter is born and develops roving curious fingers.

[KOM2]

I have a MiniVault Deluxe and really like it. Biometric would be cool but too rich for my blood. I will say I started off with the standard model and had some issues with it dying on battery. I contacted them and they sent me a replacement model no charge. Then another year or so went by and it wouldn't open one day. I used the key override and replaced the batteries and it still wouldn't open without the key. I contacted Gun Vault again and they said it sounded like a cable issue. They sent me a deluxe model for my hassle which is nice because it has the a/c plug with battery backup and a light inside. I feel a lot more comfortable having the a/c as primary. They also told me the cable issue was a design flaw and they were apparently breaking inside the unit in some devices. They have since switched designs and no longer have that problem. I would say their customer service was great for me! I keep 2 pistols in it and open it and open/close it several times a day everyday. This one has been going strong for about a year or so now.

[TNMTBik3r]

I have a Gun vault mini vault deluxe (power with battery backup, light, and alarm), molded handprint touch pad (I don't trust the biometric scanner in an emergency).
I like it, cabled to the bed frame for me. Easy to access but keeps the kid out. I would definitely purchase again, in fact have been considering one for my office.

The micro vault did seem more flimsy but for a free minutes while you run into a building, etc it should be fine. Edited July 2, 2013 by jonathon1289

[TMF]

 

Also, it's great for the night-stand ready-weapon in a house with children.

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I bought mine.

 

I have the larger version, but it can be operated by security code or by key.  I don't care if it could be smashed with a sledge.  That means someone would have to carry a sledge or a heavy ass lock box with them after they steal it.  Either way, I don't see that happening.  If it does I have insurance.  Criminals would do more damage to my home or automobile trying to free my firearm than the actual cost of the firearm. 

 

In my opinion, these are meant as a deterent to vehicle theft (if properly cabled) or to little hands.  I'm more concerned about little hands getting ahold of an unsecured pistol.  This gives me peace of mind.  I've had it since my first born was a toddler.

[runco]

I have three of the smaller sizes with the 3 digit tumbler type lock.  I have small kids, and these are great for that.  I also have them on cables, just for the quick and grab cases.  I recommend them for the kid thing and the quick smash and grab, otherwise I wouldn't recommend.

[Wyldk2]

Well, I have a small Nano type box in my truck. It will keep your gun out of a smash and grab thief, but if given enough time, I'm sure the lock on it can be defeated. Cabled it to the front seat. I had mine for when I was employed ( and when I am employed again). I doubt it would be legal if i got a federal Job though.

[Guest TankerHC]

Wrong post. Cousin OWNS the 500 and had an earlier version. Earlier version low quality, this one ten times better for 10 dollars more.

Edited July 2, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I like non-electrical locks. And am very fond of the mechanical five-push-button mechanical locks because they are fast and relatively sturdy for the purpose as best I can tell. Have a bedroom "nightstand" five-button pistol safe that has been operated perhaps once per day for about 13 years and still works perfectly. I oiled the mechanism a couple of times, but its been years since it was even oiled.

 

Any person who knows permutations could eventually open it by brute-force testing every permutation. But because it can be  programmed for up to three sequential button press combinations, and each press can use one or more buttons, there are more permutations than merely 2^n - 1. (it wouldn't be a proper code to press zero buttons, which eliminates one of the permutations)

 

With 5 buttons and only one sequential button combination allowed, that would only be 31 possible codes.

 

But allowing two sequential button combinations to be entered-- The mechanical lock doesn't allow the same button to be pressed twice, so you have to leave at least one button un-pressed for the second sequence, so there would be these possible sequences--

 

(four buttons pressed then one button pressed) = 5 first choices * 1 second choice (because there is only one remaining button to choose)

(three buttons pressed then one or two buttons pressed) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices = 30 total combinations

(two buttons pressed then one or two or three buttons pressed) = 10 first choices * 7 second choices = 70 total combinations

(one button pressed then one or two or three or four buttons pressed) = 5 first choices * 15 second choices = 75 total combinations

 

So a five button lock allowing either one or two button press sequences ought to offer (31 + 5 + 30 + 70 + 75) = 211 different combos to try.

 

With three sequential button combinations allowed, it would add the following options--

 

(three buttons, then one button, then one button) = 10 first choices * 2 second choices * 1 remaining choice = 20 combinations

(two buttons, then one button, then one button) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 2 third choices = 60 combinations

(two buttons, then two buttons, then one button) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

(two buttons, then one button, then two buttons) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

(one button, then one button, then one button) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 3 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then two buttons, then one button) = 5 first choices * 6 second choices * 2 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then three buttons, then one button) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 1 third choice = 20 combinations

(one button, then one button, then two buttons) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 3 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then one button, then three buttons) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 1 third choice = 20 combinations

(one button, then two buttons, then two buttons) = 5 first choices * 6 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

 

So allowing three button presses adds 390 combinations. Allowing either one sequential combination, or two sequential combinations, or three sequential combinations, I think would offer a total of 601 discrete key press sequences to try (worst case), in order to brute-force open the safe. Assuming that the very last possibility tested would happen to be the actual combination. It wouldn't be impossible to guess on the first try of course.

 

Unless my math is all wrong, which is entirely possible and happens with alarming regularity.

 

If a person attempting to guess the combo is not aware of the rules of the lock-- That it can be programmed for either one, two, or three sequential button combinations, then it would be much more difficult to crack by brute-force testing every possible combination.

[TNMTBik3r]

Not going to verify Lester's math, but 601 tries will take a while. And some models (mini vault anyways) has an alarm (beep and light flash) and lockout after incorrect tries.

Edit - Amazon and GunVault say "more than 12 million user selectable codes" Edited July 2, 2013 by jonathon1289

[Guest Lester Weevils]

An electronic lock wouldn't have to follow the rule "each button can only be pressed one time" which is enforced with the little mechanical button safes I've seen. An electronic lock which allows each button to be pressed more than once, would allow MANY more possible combinations.

 

I'm partial to the "no batteries required" advantage of the mechanical lock. Keyed mechanical locks are a problem if you don't have the key, and are slower than buttons unless you leave the key in the lock. Thumbwheel rotary combination locks offer more permutations and do not need a key, but I think those would also be slower to open than a button lock, unless you leave the thumbwheels "almost at the correct combination". Maybe the thumbwheel locks don't allow you to leave it "just one digit off the combination" or whatever, dunno. I can open my mechanical button pistol safe lickety split even in the dark.

 

There's no reason a mechanical button lock couldn't be designed to allow buttons to be pressed more than one time each, but I've not seen such a lock on small pistol safes. Am not expert on this or anything else, however. The mechanical button locks on the various brands I have seen, all seem to be about the same basic mechanism.

[2.ooohhh]

I only use the nano vaults mounted in vehicles and when traveling. If I'm getting in or out of or into my cars I'll more than likely already have my keys in hand so the keyed lock is not an inconvenience especially since it uses the same key as my houses, trailers, ect after modification. 

 

If I were looking for a bedside lock box it would likely be of the 5 button fast access variety, They are a great option where fast access is desired.

[Guest confidence]

I like non-electrical locks. And am very fond of the mechanical five-push-button mechanical locks because they are fast and relatively sturdy for the purpose as best I can tell. Have a bedroom "nightstand" five-button pistol safe that has been operated perhaps once per day for about 13 years and still works perfectly. I oiled the mechanism a couple of times, but its been years since it was even oiled.

 

Any person who knows permutations could eventually open it by brute-force testing every permutation. But because it can be  programmed for up to three sequential button press combinations, and each press can use one or more buttons, there are more permutations than merely 2^n - 1. (it wouldn't be a proper code to press zero buttons, which eliminates one of the permutations)

 

With 5 buttons and only one sequential button combination allowed, that would only be 31 possible codes.

 

But allowing two sequential button combinations to be entered-- The mechanical lock doesn't allow the same button to be pressed twice, so you have to leave at least one button un-pressed for the second sequence, so there would be these possible sequences--

 

(four buttons pressed then one button pressed) = 5 first choices * 1 second choice (because there is only one remaining button to choose)

(three buttons pressed then one or two buttons pressed) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices = 30 total combinations

(two buttons pressed then one or two or three buttons pressed) = 10 first choices * 7 second choices = 70 total combinations

(one button pressed then one or two or three or four buttons pressed) = 5 first choices * 15 second choices = 75 total combinations

 

So a five button lock allowing either one or two button press sequences ought to offer (31 + 5 + 30 + 70 + 75) = 211 different combos to try.

 

With three sequential button combinations allowed, it would add the following options--

 

(three buttons, then one button, then one button) = 10 first choices * 2 second choices * 1 remaining choice = 20 combinations

(two buttons, then one button, then one button) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 2 third choices = 60 combinations

(two buttons, then two buttons, then one button) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

(two buttons, then one button, then two buttons) = 10 first choices * 3 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

(one button, then one button, then one button) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 3 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then two buttons, then one button) = 5 first choices * 6 second choices * 2 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then three buttons, then one button) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 1 third choice = 20 combinations

(one button, then one button, then two buttons) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 3 third choices = 60 combinations

(one button, then one button, then three buttons) = 5 first choices * 4 second choices * 1 third choice = 20 combinations

(one button, then two buttons, then two buttons) = 5 first choices * 6 second choices * 1 third choice = 30 combinations

 

So allowing three button presses adds 390 combinations. Allowing either one sequential combination, or two sequential combinations, or three sequential combinations, I think would offer a total of 601 discrete key press sequences to try (worst case), in order to brute-force open the safe. Assuming that the very last possibility tested would happen to be the actual combination. It wouldn't be impossible to guess on the first try of course.

 

Unless my math is all wrong, which is entirely possible and happens with alarming regularity.

 

If a person attempting to guess the combo is not aware of the rules of the lock-- That it can be programmed for either one, two, or three sequential button combinations, then it would be much more difficult to crack by brute-force testing every possible combination.

 

:stare: