Letter I sent the GunVault about the NanoVault 300

**QuackXP** · June 2nd, 2010, 04:24 PM

Here is my letter to GunVault about my recently purchased NanoVault 300 and some of the faults I believe it has in its design.

Link to the product: http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safe...vault-300.html

I recently purchased a NanoVault 300. I am mostly happy with my purchase however there are a couple of grievances with its design I would like t make you aware of.

First, is the quality of the lock. I have heard great things about your safes and I was a bit disappointed at the quality of the combination lock. It does not "click" with each number and set firmly into place and is very easy to set it in between two numbers.

Second, is the position of the the combination lock. To me it seems logical to use the device with the lock closest to you and the hinges farther away. Like a regular gun case or a legal pad. I either have to use the device backwards to what seems most logical to me or enter the combination in upside down.

Third, if the device was meant to be used with the lock closest and the hinges farther away from the user as I described in the last paragraph it seems more logical to move the notch for the cable toward the hinge side of the device.

Fourth, and final. This is not necessarily a design flaw and is partially my fault for not reading the spec sheet throughly taking measurements against my holstered pistol. But my Smith & Wesson Sigma 9mm (SW9VE) when holstered in a Don Hume H715-M W.C. IWB, open top, single clip style holster is thicker than the case itself. One of the intended uses of the case I had though of was to secure my loaded and holstered firearm. Because the firearm will not fit holstered I would be required to un-holster it before storage and re-holster it afterward. In my mind this is unnecessary gun handling that could bring the risk of a negligent discharge up.

While none of these grievances are enough to warrant me to return or not use your device. I could not recommend it in good conscious to another buyer.

If some or all of my grievances with the device are changed in a model I might be interested in purchasing that upgraded device.

Now the good. The device is very sturdy and fits an un-holstered fully framed gun well and holds it into place. There is room for 1 or 2 mags with the firearm. If your a person who prefers a key to a combination and is not storing a holstered firearm then I would say go and get the NanoVault 100/200

**zachomega** · June 2nd, 2010, 04:55 PM

10$ says I could get it open in 5 minutes with a screwdriver and a hammer.

Don't even get me started on the quality of locks on small gun safes. I would be happier if they spent the money they spent on those cheap locks on solid welding and put a hasp on the case so I could put a real lock on it.

-Zach

**thebearpack** · June 2nd, 2010, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by zachomega

10$ says I could get it open in 5 minutes with a screwdriver and a hammer.

Probably, but it keeps the little ones away from a loaded gun and that's exactly what it's supposed to do.

I'm not familiar with that brand but it seems like most of Quack's issues would be in trying to get the gun OUT in a hurry, and not with keeping it secure in the Nano.

**QuackXP** · June 2nd, 2010, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by zachomega

10$ says I could get it open in 5 minutes with a screwdriver and a hammer.

Don't even get me started on the quality of locks on small gun safes. I would be happier if they spent the money they spent on those cheap locks on solid welding and put a hasp on the case so I could put a real lock on it.

-Zach

Quite possibly. The main reason I got it was for traveling to adhere to Interstate Transportation of Firearms rules as I have a hatchback "without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment". It is also TSA certified in case I need to fly and bring my firearm.

The second reason was storage of the firearm when I am not home and cannot take it with me. Eventually I will get a larger and more robust safe. But for now I would like to better secure my carry pistol when it is left at home and not have to unload it. Although as previously stated it does suck that I have to un-holster it to fit. This may change as I want an LCP for my primary carry pistol and the Sigma will only be taken out when I deem appropriate.

**PennsyPlinker** · June 2nd, 2010, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by QuackXP

Here is my letter to GunVault about my recently purchased NanoVault 300 and some of the faults I believe it has in its design.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. I wrote them a while ago about my Gunvault. The cable that activated the door broke within weeks after the warranty expired. Fine, I offered to buy a new one. A new cable was going to cost as much as the safe itself, since I would have had to send it in, have them fix it, and ship it back to me. In fact, the very helpful

person on the other end of the phone suggested that I do just that. I told him that I did not make it a practice to buy junk that broke immediately out of warranty more than once, especially when replacement parts cost as much as a new unit. I think I explained that in my letter too. What a surprise, no one was interested in addressing my concerns.