Reddit mentions of First Alert Portable Handgun Safe, Small Multicolor, 5200DF

Shopping for one now actually, was thinking about this one.

I'm also trying to decide how to best preserve the box. Would plastic tupperware be good or should I include a dehumidifier or something?

I have this one from First Alert, and I recommend it. It's affordable, easy to access my firearm quickly in an emergency, and works reliably. My only complaints are the size, and sometimes the battery compartment cover falls off if I leave the safe open.

I'm saving up / wait for a sale to get this one from Hornady, though. Lots of great features and should work better in my vehicle.

If users really want a bedside option for that panic moment, get a small three digit gun safe with a spring loaded door. Here is an option for under 100 USD.

Little small for gear AND a pistol, but I have this one for my nightstand. Works great, pretty cheap, at least comparatively.

https://amzn.com/B00RM71EW2

I have a larger version of this and I like it a lot.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00RM71EW2/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1493126512&sr=1-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=gun+box&dpPl=1&dpID=417iDXdLXgL&ref=plSrch

It allows you to set your own combination for fast access. Mine is a quick 6 button pattern. I bought it because I have a curios 2 year old. I can get to this box and get my pistol ready within 10 seconds from anywhere in the house and am comfortable keeping it with one in the chamber so the wife can easily use it as well.

Mine is a little bigger. I store my shield in it with the extra mag and a silicone cloth for wipe downs with plenty of room. I recommend steering away from finger print scanning because it could take multiple scans for a read. And you never know, you could be trying to access it with blood covered hands...

> I don't see why we couldn't direct that superfluous military funding to something like reliable smart guns, which would be extremely beneficial to the military and civilians.

This is debatable and it all depends on how we want our tax dollars being used. Granted that normal guns are not banned, then I'm pretty much okay with the idea since it promotes gun ownership and safety. I disagree about it helping the military for a few different reasons, but do agree that it would be a good civilian product.

> Also, you talk about how speed and reliability are the main reasons that smart guns just won't work, but then you say that keeping a Glock in a safe is preferable. But my dad used to have a gun safe, and I guarantee that it would take longer for him to respond to a home invasion by retrieving a gun from a safe and firing than it would for him to unholster a smart gun, go a retina scan or some ridiculously inefficient authentication method, and then fire.

I mean in the context of carrying on your person - reliability being that the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled and you won't have jams, speed being that the safety mechanistic (if there is one) needs to be instantaneous to disengage.

There are safes that are biometric that quickly and automatically present your gun in an easy to grab fashion such as this. Most gun owners keep something like that on their nightstand.

> Leaving a weapon in a safe is basically putting all of the responsibility of being reliable in your own hands, hoping that you will either A) be packing and have it loaded when you need it, or B) be close enough to your safe, and cool enough under pressure, that you will have sufficient time and notice to defend yourself.

You're either sleeping and the gun is at your nightstand (or within reaching distance), or you are carrying, which is whenever I'm not sleeping. When I'm sleeping, I can have my gun ready in about 5 seconds. When I'm out in public, it's always on my person.

> I just don't see how a smart gun, even one with something as time consuming as a retina scan, is less reliable and rapidly available than a gun in a safe.

You're making a general statement about the gun being in a safe and being unreachable when that isn't normally the case. Gun owners keep their gun at their nightstand, or in a biometric safe, or a similar safe that is quickly opened (and it's always within reaching distance).

The problem with a "smart-gun" isn't for when you're sleeping. The problem with a "smart-gun" is when you're pointing the gun at your target and it not firing reliably when you need it to be. In other words, less than a quarter of a second could mean death. Any jam could mean death. This is partly the reason why law enforcement uses Glocks because there is no safety mechanism to disengage (and they're just flat out extremely reliable and always shoot).

> A smart gun would allow you to carry any time, anywhere, with almost no fear of your gun accidentally killing someone or not being available when you need it.

You're advocating a "smart-gun" for the wrong reasons. The advantage to a theoretical "smart-gun" is that it can't be stolen and used by someone else. Guns don't have any issues with accidentally killing someone - the gun is only going to fire if the operator pulls the trigger, that's the way guns work.

> If such a smart gun was made, I can almost guarantee that it would be more reliable under pressure than the average human responding to a true threat.

It wouldn't, but I'm happy to elaborate why you're wrong. A gun is reliable because 1) It is well designed, 2) It is battle-tested and proven, 3) It doesn't jam. A gun's reliablity is purely mechanical and has absolutely nothing to do with performing under pressure.

The problem with "smart-guns" is because creating such a gun would require a complete overhaul of gun design as we know it. Guns include a lot of parts - think of a gun like an old-fashioned watch. There are hundreds of modern guns that aren't reliable, which is the reason the Military and Government only use certain guns. New designs for modern day guns take an average of around 5-10 years to design. Designing a "smart-gun" would require at least twice as much time and would definitely not meet the military's standard of reliability (coincidentally, a civilian's standard for reliability is the same as the military because life is that valuable) because the technology just doesn't exist. It would be the equivalent to colonists with their muskets (the ones where you smolder a wick to the gunpowder) in the 1700s inventing an AR-15.

> The limiting factor in reliability would be the shooter 99.99999% of the time, not the gun. If the shooter is more reliable than the gun... Well that's a scrapped design.

Reliability is always the gun, never the shooter. All the shooter does is pull the trigger. Reliability is a gigantic issue with existing modern firearms because not all firearms meet that standard. My point is that reliable firearms are a challenge as it is already. There are only a few guns that I would recommend as a daily carry.

Not offense, but I can tell that you don't know much about guns, but I'm happy to answer your questions. :)

Good luck enforcing this. I have my LTC and concealed carry almost everywhere I go. You'll have absolutely no idea who had a firearm on them if they're doing it properly. Check out CCW Reciprocity laws if you're that concerned, however every night I stay in an unfamiliar place, I lock it up in one of these:
https://amzn.com/B00RM71EW2