LocksmithArmy wrote:so your saying revers picking works on all locks that dont have security keypins all the time...
Where did I say that? I asked you to elaborate on why it wouldn't since you ruled out it's effectiveness in certain situations.
if that were the case... there would be ALOT more topics abt it on here... its not a secret, i discuss it on my website an ther are no advanced picking techniques threads in the advanced section... alls im saying is holding up 10 pins and getting only the correct 5 to fall when you want is not as easy as you seem to think.
Nice Occam's Razor.
0.001 may be the difference between the pins and chambers... but having one chamber a hare more worn out than the other or having a pin a lil more worn down will make that difference greater.
More distorted reality.
First, did you know locksmith's intentionally cause wear in a chamber? It's true. You reduce the tolerance to compensate for worn or miscut keys. The bi-product, of course, means it's easier to pick. But what's a few thousands of an inch when someone's determined to pick a lock? Nothing - so reduction of security is often groundless, but I digress.
Second, a worn pin will be reduced in length exponentially more than in diameter. I'm sure datagram can attest to this. The abrasiveness and interaction between the key and pins produce far, far more wear than the plug and the pin.
and 0.001 is fairly large if you consider one may only be 0.0005 different... now that one will bind first... cause the chamber is closer than the pin... in a perfect world all will bind at the same time and neither picking or reverse picking would work...
Congratulations, you've discovered how lock picking is made possible.
my senarios arnt that far feched when you consider how minute differences makes picking possible, minute differences will also make reverse picking more difficult.
Your scenarios did not deal with those minute differences but rather flaws in the production of cylinders. Remember when you purported errors between bottom and top pins? Or one chamber larger/smaller than the rest - so much so that it, according to you, essentially prevents reverse picking?
I can understand misaligned chambers or maybe tiny differences in pin or chamber size, but you're suggesting overly elaborate production flaws as if to fit your argument.
and while the technique may work on a lock with these security pins (or any other security pin) it also may not work for one lock or another reguardless or tension direction.
And now we're back to my original question, albeit in a different format: Please elaborate, why wouldn't it work?
if this technique were as reliable as you seem to imply than it would be a far more popular technique. fact remains its just not as reliable a technique and due to imperfections in the manufactuing of the locks it dont always work... infact id say it fails more often than it works, atleast in my expieriences, granted i only try it on locks that im having problems spping.
It's not a reliable technique? What do you base that off of? Your lack of success with it? The fact that's not discussed on here? Outstanding logic.
Have you ever stopped to think that a majority of lock's don't feature security pins? Does that mean they aren't reliable simply because they're not in the majority? That's your reasoning. Do you not see how ridiculous it is?
Reverse picking has it place, primarily on pin-tumbler locks with security pins. You wouldn't expect someone to reverse pick a standard set of bottom and top pins, would you? No, so their role is effectively reduced to cylinders with security pins which, as stated above, are not in the majority in the U.S. market. That's the reason it's not discussed more. It has a limited application when compared to the rest of picking techniques and that's not because it doesn't work.