Home Depot is a one-stop shopping destination for all things related to home improvement, but you’ve likely visited the store for more than just renovation supplies. Big Orange also carries appliances, furniture, lawn and garden supplies, holiday decorations, home decor and more.

But if you pick up the wrong tool or a ceiling fan that doesn’t fit your space, Home Depot has a generous return policy for most items, but if you’re a regular customer, take note — the store recently changed the rules for a few products. If you enjoy scaring trick or treaters with fake skeletons at Halloween or decking the halls at Christmas, be aware that any holiday decor purchased at Home Depot must now be returned within 30 days. It also cannot be used, and you must have a proof of purchase.

The home improvement store offers an even shorter return window for some items, allowing only seven days for air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and gas generators. Effective July 2026, Home Depot added pumps, portable evaporation products, and portable heaters to its seven-day return policy. Again, they must be unused and have proof of purchase. For many products, the store’s typical 90-day return policy remains in place.

While the home improvement store didn’t issue any official statement on the updated return policies, they are likely intended to stop shoppers from abusing these policies or using products for scams. Some shoppers may attempt to buy an item, use it for a short period, and then return it for a full refund. This is most common with seasonal decor, high-value items or tools with a specific use that you may only need for one job.

If you’re worried about the return window for a specific item, check Home Depot’s return policy online. The store maintains that “most merchandise” falls under its 90-day return window, provided you have a receipt or other proof of purchase. However, the store also has 30-day, seven-day, and even 48-hour windows for specific items. Major appliances, for example, have only a two-day return window, while the store offers 30 days for consumers to return furniture and consumer electronics. Most plants can be returned within 90 days.

Meanwhile, customers who have a Home Depot consumer credit card, the Pro Xtra credit card, or a commercial account with the store. Purchases made with those cards have a year-long return window, unless they fall under those shorter return windows listed on Home Depot’s website!

If we asked you what tools a cowboy in the Wild West needed most, you’d probably say their spurs, their saddle, their Stetson hat, and perhaps the lasso. You’d be right, too, but just as our modern misconceptions about cowboys give us a historically warped view of how they really were, spurs and saddles aren’t the whole story. Cowboys during the Wild West — roughly the latter half of the 19th century — relied on a lot more than just the stereotypical accouterments of their mythologized career. Some of the tools they relied on weren’t always for the reasons you’re thinking — and of course, there’s a lot of interesting history behind each and every one that’s worth digging into.

We want to take a very brief look at Wild West-era tech that would have played an important role in a cowboy’s life, even if only indirectly. Some of the most groundbreaking innovations in human history came about during the westward-moving American frontier. Thus, America’s beloved cattle drivers came to rely on them in some fashion. Let’s take a look at these five items in particular.

Throughout history, humans did think up some quick, long-distance communication methods, like semaphores. The telegraph took that to the next level. The electric telegraph, as we know it, sent its first official message in 1844. For the first time in history, a message could travel the miles at virtually the speed of light. You can still send a telegram today if you really want to.

Since the American West was so vast, so far from the eastern seat of government, and still expanding, the telegraph closed the distance, in a sense. Updated prices, standardized time zones, train schedules, it could all be sent much faster than even the Pony Express. Since cowboys worked primarily as cattle drivers directing cattle to railway depots, from whence they’d go east to the slaughterhouses, the telegrams were the superior means of communication over these vast distances; the telegraph affected supply chains of all kinds, like cotton and textiles, in some cases completely upheaving how they’d functioned previously. The telegraph might transmit the price of beef and coordinate the rail, and thus would have been a pivotal — even if unspoken — technological advancement underpinning a cowboy’s career.

Aside from that, the telegraph would have helped a cowboy in other ways. News, for example. News could arrive as it happened, so cowboys no longer had to wait on riders or word of mouth. They also had the ability to wire money orders via Western Union as early as 1870.

Nowadays we don’t think twice about canned food. It’s so commonplace and dull that it doesn’t even merit a conversation, but it’s hard to overstate just how big of a technological advance this was in the 19th century. Food spoils quickly, so before canning — heating food and sealing it in an airtight container — there were massive constraints on how and where food could be stored, how it was transported, and how long you could safely eat it. After canning, long journeys halfway around the globe without frequent stops for provisions became possible. It changed how people fed their families, how wars were fought, and unsurprisingly, how cowboys lived.

Canned food quickly became available in the American West, for obvious reasons. Cowboys might have enjoyed meat, fish, vegetables, and fruit thanks to it while out on cattle drives far from anywhere that would sell it fresh. They often ate from chuck wagons, white-topped wagons carrying enough to feed everyone on the trail (via NCSU). Some of the brands you’re most familiar with (Campbell’s Soup, for one) started out in the late 19th century. It’s entirely possible a cowboy over 100 years ago was enjoying the tomato soup that you now take for granted as part of your emergency supply in the pantry.

Granted, not all their food was canned, and it wasn’t sacrosanct; during that period, there were times when poorly done canning led to rotten food and consequently, a public mistrust of the process.

Guns loaded with bullets in brass cartridges have been the norm for over a century. Prior to that, a trained soldier needed a full minute to breech-load a musket with a paper cartridge and a single shot. Battles up to and including the American Civil War (a war already deploying submarines) were fought in lines of men standing in open fields while they shot, reloaded, and shot. All of that changed in the mid-19th century with the proliferation of metallic cartridges. Aside from being faster to reload, metallic cartridges made guns safer to shoot and kept powder dry for longer (via American Rifleman).

For one, if cowboys were attacked on the trail, it usually was an ambush, likely necessitating a gun that can load and fire quickly. The term “vigilante” originates from that time since law enforcement was scarce in the regions where cowboys might have worked. Dangers on the trail included predators, cattle thieves (better known as rustlers), and in some cases Native American tribes, so a cowboy armed himself for self-defense and to protect his boss’ herds (via NCSU). Further, cowboys were on long cattle trails that pitted them against wet weather, so paper cartridges wouldn’t be ideal.

The irony is that cowboys did need guns, but not for the reasons you’d suspect. The reality was cowboys shooting an attacking bear, or rustlers knowing there wasn’t a lawman for miles who’d punish the crime.

Alongside metallic cartridges, guns made significant strides around the same time. Guns went from single-shot affairs to weapons that a person could shoot and reload in quick succession, particularly repeater rifles and revolvers. Gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Winchester became household names at this time. As such, a cowboy might have access to a Winchester 1873 or a Colt 1873 (known as the Colt Single Action Army), a repeating rifle and revolver, respectively (via Lamar University Press).

Coupled with metallic cartridges, the benefits are clear: cowboys had guns they could shoot and reload quickly. As previously stated, a cowboy faced several threats where a firearm would be essential. However, there’s a lot more nuance to cowboys and guns than most may realize. For one, these early repeating weapons were finicky. Misfires could happen, and generally speaking, gunshot injuries were more often accidental than not.

Then there’s the less spoken-of side to the Wild West: gun control. Gun violence wasn’t as rampant as many believe, but people at the time were still fed up with it. In some cases, cowboy gangs were the main aggressors. Cities like Tombstone enacted strict laws on ownership and open carrying, in response (via Smithsonian). If you’re imagining a Hollywood movie where a cowboy struts into town with a six-shooter bouncing on his hip, the reality is more likely that he’d make a beeline to the local officer and surrender it for the duration of his stay. If he didn’t, he might spend his last moments looking down that officer’s barrel.

Locomotive engines rose to prominence in the 19th century, changing everything as the telegraph did. Now, heavy cargo could be taken long distances relatively quickly, safely, and reliably, and the average person had access to cheaper goods from faraway places. Beef was one of these things. The demand for beef from growing cities in the east could be sated with the immense herds of longhorns in the sprawling west. All that was needed was cowboys to drive herds (numbering in the thousands) between mountains, across plains and rivers, to their cattle cars. Cowboys took long routes such as the famous Chisholm Trail to guide cattle safely from pastures to the rail, with all the environmental, animal, and human dangers that entailed.

Cow towns (or cattle towns) arose as a direct result of this, to service tired cowboys at the end of their route (via Kansas Historical Society). These cow towns epitomized the Wild West idea of a town we all have in our heads: hoof-churned streets, roisterous saloons, and violent clashes between the law and armed men. Even once the cows stopped coming, many of these towns found new sources of prosperity.

The train made a lucrative business out of bringing beef to places that didn’t have much. That business needed burly men who could be trusted to get a horde of stubborn animals from point A to B safely. So even though many cowboys probably rarely — if ever — set foot on a train, many of them would have had no employment without it.

We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

For people on the road, keeping all your devices charged can be challenging. Unless, of course, you have your own solar panel with you. There are plenty of compact solar panels from reputable manufacturers that you can plug directly into your mobile phones, cameras, fans, or laptops. But if you need a solar panel that can also work with your power tool system, you might want to take a look at Ryobi.

One of the brand’s many backpack-sized offerings, Ryobi now offers two foldable solar panels, one 14-watt ($79) and the other 21-watt ($99). When folded, both models measure 12.25 inches by 6.5 inches, which make them even more compact than a 13-inch MacBook Air. Both options share a lot of core features, such as USB-A and USB-C output ports, compatibility with Ryobi power sources, and multiple usage options. You can either lay them flat on the ground or hang them from something with their built-in loops.

Although they do have a few key differences. First and most obvious is that the 21-Watt model is slightly thicker when folded, since it has three panels instead of two. While it is half a pound heavier than the 14W, the 21W model is more efficient and Ryobi claims it can charge your phone about 30 minutes faster. Both are covered under Ryobi’s 3-Year Limited Warranty.

There aren’t many reviews yet for either unit, but early feedback has been generally positive. For the 14W model, it has a perfect 5-star rating on the Ryobi website, where one owner said that they used it more often than they thought they would. They praised its size and said, “I highly recommend this product to anyone who spends time outdoors!” On Home Depot, it has a slightly lower rating of 4.4 stars from 15 people.

As for the 21W model, it has a slightly higher rating of 4.9 stars from 7 people on the Ryobi website, but it does have a significantly lower rating on Home Depot, wherein it holds 3.8 stars from 43 reviewers. One reviewer noted that it does take some time to charge devices, but also highlighted how it worked for both their personal and professional needs. They said it was a great companion from the beach to the job site.

Another customer on the 14 watt model’s page mentioned that they bought and loved both. Apart from the thickness, they said both worked as expected. While they’re not as powerful as the 60W foldable solar panels, both seem to hit the mark for many users. Apart from charging your small electronic devices regularly, it’s also capable of charging your Ryobi 18V ONE+ power sources.

One popular option that Ryobi lists as compatible is the 18V ONE+ 150W Battery Power Source and Charger Kit. Priced at $129, this kit includes a 150-watt power source and charger, 2Ah battery, and dual-port wall plug. For output, it has a pair of USB-A ports and a 120V outlet, plus an external LED lamp. It’s also a product we’ve previously recommended to level up your fishing game. As of July 2026, more than 170 people have rated it an impressive 4.8 stars on average on the Ryobi website. On the other hand, it holds a 4.6-star average from 870 Home Depot customers.

If you want something that can power larger appliances, Ryobi also notes that it works with the 18V ONE+ 1,800W Power Station Kit. Retailing for $899, it can be quite the investment, but it does include a slew of practical features worth considering, since it can hold up to 8 batteries and even power full-sized fridges and television sets. On the Ryobi website, more than 20 people rated it 4.2 stars. On Home Depot, the unit itself has the same rating but from 260 people.

Both units are compatible with all 18V ONE+ batteries. When not used with the Ryobi solar panels, you can also power them via wall chargers and car adapters. Ryobi also sells different cables at different lengths between 4 inches to 10 inches that you can purchase.

If there’s one automotive brand that has become synonymous with safety, it’s Volvo. Since the Swedish company introduced the very first three-point seatbelt over 60 years ago, its vehicles have continued to be among the safest machines on the road, often creating safety features that have become standard across the entire automotive landscape. While Volvo has that safety reputation, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current iteration of the company is producing the safest vehicles. In fact, only two current 2026 Volvo models have earned a Top Safety Pick award from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety: the EX90 large SUV and XC90 mid-size SUV (along with its plug-in hybrid version). Every other 2026 model comes up short, including the the 2026 Volvo XC40 small SUV.

That isn’t to say the XC40 gets poor ratings from the IIHS. On a scale of good, acceptable, marginal, and poor, it earned good ratings for the small overlap front and moderate overlap front crash tests, as well as providing good seat belt reminders. However, it only earned acceptable ratings for its side crash test and whiplash prevention. There are also several areas that the IIHS didn’t test the XC40 on, such as its headlights, front crash prevention, and LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) ease of use.

Because of these setbacks, a number of small SUV competitors from all around have been able to greatly outshine the Volvo XC40 in safety, earning either the IIHS’ Top Safety Pick or Top Safety Pick+ designations. Here, we’re going to look at five different models that are generally regarded as more safe by the IIHS than the model designed by the historically safety-minded automaker.

As Volvo is a luxury brand, we’re going to start in that realm with the BMW X1, which has earned a Top Safety Pick+ award from the IIHS for the 2026 model. Just like the XC40, the BMW earned the top good rating for its small overlap front and moderate overlap front crash tests, but it also earned that same rating for its side crash tests, rather than just acceptable.

The BMW X1 was also tested in a number of areas that the XC40 wasn’t. It earned good scores for its headlights, child safety anchors, and standard front crash prevention system for pedestrians. For the latter, it avoided a collision in every test scenario. However, it did only get an acceptable rating for its standard front crash prevention system for vehicle-to-vehicle scenarios. It passed every test for this rating except for one. Instead of avoiding the collision, the vehicle had to reduce its speed by 16 mph from a starting speed of 31 mph when approaching a motorcycle off-center. Meanwhile, the Volvo XC40 didn’t go through any of these tests.

There’s one area that the Volvo outperformed the BMW: the seat belt reminders. Here, the X1 earned just a marginal rating, which is due to two very specific places where it comes up short. The IIHS found that the sound to alert someone that their seat belt wasn’t properly fastened was too low, though the initiation time, audio frequency, and duration all passed. The other its that there’s no visual startup status alert for seat belts in the second row. While the BMW X1 has these issues, it still far outpaces the Volvo in totality.

There were a few Mazda compact SUVs that could’ve made this list, but the one we’re going to spotlight is the Mazda CX-5. Yes, it’s the more expensive than the CX-30 and CX-50, both of which also received Top Safety Pick+ awards from the IIHS, but with that slightly larger price tag, you get a vehicle that’s rated about safe as one can be across the board.

In every single area that the IIHS tests, the Mazda was able to receive a good rating, whether it be crash tests, crash prevention tests, or seat belt reminders. For its child seat anchors, they were so exemplary that they received a good+ rating, which is as high as the IIHS goes in its ratings. There’s almost nothing bad that has been found regarding this SUV’s safety.

Yet while the CX-5’s safety ratings are excellent, they aren’t perfect. There are two important caveats that need to be addressed. The first is it wasn’t tested for whiplash prevention, which the Volvo XC40 earned an acceptable rating on. Secondly, it’s true the CX-5 earned a good rating for its headlights, but that good rating is exclusive to the S Premium Plus trim. For the S, S Select, S Preferred, and S Premium trims, the headlights only got an acceptable rating. This is because the headlights are not curve-adaptive for these lower-tiered trims. That means for the true good ratings from the IIHS across the board, you need to get the most expensive trim of the Mazda CX-5. Even with the other CX-5 trims, you at least know what you’re getting with those headlights, as the Volvo XC40 didn’t have its tested.

The Hyundai Tucson is another small SUV that has very similar IIHS safety ratings as the Mazda CX-5. At time of writing it’s the 15th best-selling vehicle in the United States in 2026 according to Car and Driver at 117,612 units sold, and that means a lot of people are pretty safe on the street. There are a couple of places that the Tucson does come short not only to the CX-5 but also the Volvo XC40, but it does so well elsewhere that it still earned that Top Safety Pick+ award from the IIHS.

In terms of crash tests, it received good ratings for small overlap front, moderate overlap front, and side crash tests. The one significant blight against the Tucson is that for its whiplash prevention test it received a poor result. The acceptable rating the Volvo earned for this was the result of it getting six demerits on the tests, whereas the Hyundai got 10 primarily for upper neck load and moment management. The XC40 got zero demerits for this but received more for everything else in these tests than the Tucson.

For crash prevention, the Tucson received good ratings across the board too. However, just like the Mazda CX-5, its headlights scores vary based on the trim. The top-level Limited earned the good rating, while the SE, SEL, and XRT trims earned an acceptable one. The seat belt reminder tests were all good, and for child seat anchors, they were deemed acceptable. The IIHS found the low anchors to be a little too deep in the seat, but considering the Volvo XC40 didn’t even have this tested, you at least know what you’re in for with the Hyundai Tucson.

The Mazda CX-5 and Hyundai Tucson had very similar safety ratings, and the 2026 Kia Sportage is right alongside those two in the eyes of the IIHS. Not only is SlashGear a big fan of this SUV, this is another Top Safety Pick+ award winner that is about as well rated as you could hope for across the board, and there aren’t even any major caveats that need to be pointed out like with Tucson.

In the four primary crash test categories, the Sportage earns a good rating in three of them: the small overlap front, moderate overlap front, and side tests. The one exception is the whiplash prevention test, which still earned an acceptable rating. In total, it received five demerits during that testing, one fewer than the Volvo XC40.

The Sportage’s crash avoidance and mitigation tests also all received good ratings. Once again though, we see a split for the headlights tests among the various trims that Kia offers for the vehicle. Unlike the previous two models, there are actually two Sportage trims that earned a good score with the SX Prestige and X-Pro Prestige. The LX, EX, X-Line, and SX trims were still deemed acceptable.

The other acceptable rating the Kia received was for its child seat anchors. Like the Tucson, the low anchors were a bit too deep into the seats for the IIHS’ liking. However, the seat belt reminder tests were all good. All in all, the Kia Sportage fits right in line with what the IIHS values in selecting its safest models.

The IIHS gave a total of 11 different small SUV models the Top Safety Pick+ award for their 2026 model years. In every single case, each model has at least one area tested that received a rating of less than good. It’s so difficult to produce a machine this large and complex that doesn’t have at least one area to find minor faults. Well, in actuality, there was in fact one model that exclusively earned good ratings, and that’s the Subaru Forester.

Whether it’s the crash tests, the crash avoidance and mitigation tests, or the internal safety feature tests, the Forester passed with flying colors. It even managed to get a good rating on the whiplash prevention tests, only earning a single demerit in its testing. Among the 11 top-rated models, the only other one to earn that good rating was the Hyundai Ioniq 5, but that one still had three demerits in those tests.

When you get down to the child seat anchor tests, you get a score that’s even better than good, as it received the coveted good+ rating as the Mazda CX-5 did. Not only is the LATCH system easy to use, but it gets that plus designation for having extra latches, allowing for anchors for all three seats in the second row instead of just the window seats. If you’re deciding to get yourself a Subaru Forester over a Volvo XC40, there are many pros and cons you need to consider before buying, but when it comes to safety, the IIHS regards the 2026 Forester as about a safe as you can get on the road.