SARGENT Lock questions

[datagram]

MACS = Maximum adjacent cut specification

It means the biggest difference in bottom pin sizes for adjacent chambers. For example, a lock with depth 0-10 and a MACS of 7, you could not put a 0 pin next to a 9 pin. MACS exists to prevent back-cutting.

dg

Except on locks like Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70 depth system) where a #1 depth is the shallowest cut and a #0 (10) depth is the deepest cut...

~~ Evan

But it doesn't matter...MACS still applies regardless of which end of the spectrum you arrange the numbers at.

dg

[Evan]

MACS = Maximum adjacent cut specification

It means the biggest difference in bottom pin sizes for adjacent chambers. For example, a lock with depth 0-10 and a MACS of 7, you could not put a 0 pin next to a 9 pin. MACS exists to prevent back-cutting.

dg

Except on locks like Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70 depth system) where a #1 depth is the shallowest cut and a #0 (10) depth is the deepest cut...

~~ Evan

But it doesn't matter...MACS still applies regardless of which end of the spectrum you arrange the numbers at.

dg

Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70) deepest Depth #0 which is 10 next to a #9 depth = 10 - 9 = difference of 1 so well within MACS spec of 7... Remember: Sargent and Corbin Pre-70 that a ZERO depth is not a shallow cut its backwards of most normal cylinders...

~~ Evan

[datagram]

Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70) deepest Depth #0 which is 10 next to a #9 depth = 10 - 9 = difference of 1 so well within MACS spec of 7... Remember: Sargent and Corbin Pre-70 that a ZERO depth is not a shallow cut its backwards of most normal cylinders...

~~ Evan

I don't think you understand how to do the math on this. MACS is not a literal variable to be used in the equation of adding/subtracting pin sizes. MACS defines the maximum value that two adjacent pins can be different by, defined in units of pin depth increments.

So in your example, depth 0 which is 0 (it doesn't matter what "real" depth it is) next to a 9 is a different of 9, which would violate a MACS of 7. However, if the progression goes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 then obviously 0 can be next to a 9, because it is only 1 size bigger (as your own math shows).

So even if the progression was B A E F G N U J then a MACS of 4 would not allow B and U to be next to each other. It doesn't matter what the pin depths are represented as.

dg

[Evan]

I don't think you understand how to do the math on this. MACS is not a literal variable to be used in the equation of adding/subtracting pin sizes. MACS defines the maximum value that two adjacent pins can be different by, defined in units of pin depth increments.

So in your example, depth 0 which is 0 (it doesn't matter what "real" depth it is) next to a 9 is a different of 9, which would violate a MACS of 7. However, if the progression goes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 then obviously 0 can be next to a 9, because it is only 1 size bigger (as your own math shows).

So even if the progression was B A E F G N U J then a MACS of 4 would not allow B and U to be next to each other. It doesn't matter what the pin depths are represented as.

dg

Yes, I do understand what MACS is... I think the issue here is that you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with the depth systems of Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70)... ZERO does not mean the same thing to all lock manufacturers, in fact at least one doesn't even have a "0" depth at all...

Not all locks follow the standard logical scale of shallowest = 0 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 = deepest...
Schlage follows this logic and has a MACS of 7,
So a #0 can be next to a #7 but not a #8 or a #9...

Some including the two I mention above use a different scale system where "0" is not in its normal sequence...
shallowest = 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 = deepest...
The MACS on Sargent is 7: So a #1 can be next to a #8 but not a #9 or a #0...
on Corbin (Pre-System 70) MACS is 8...

If you think that is strange, then the scale used by ASSA locks get even weirder... On ASSA it goes like this:
shallowest = 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 = deepest...
The MACS on an ASSA cylinder is 5...
So a #9 can be next to a #4 but not a #3 or a #2 or a #1...
There isn't a #0 on ASSA locks !

It worries me slightly that someone who has a very detailed forensic locksmithing website seems unaware of the different bitting depth scale systems used by different lock manufacturers...

MACS = Maximum adjacent cut specification

It means the biggest difference in bottom pin sizes for adjacent chambers. For example, a lock with depth 0-10 and a MACS of 7, you could not put a 0 pin next to a 9 pin. MACS exists to prevent back-cutting.

dg

In order for the above to be true the depth system would have to have 11 increment depths but it doesn't it has only ten depths numbered 1 through 0, you can not have a ZERO depth on both ends of the scale...

Many people get confused about this especially with Corbin-Russwin keying systems where prior to the inception of the System 70 single step progression depth system, if using the Pre-System 70 depths on a Corbin the depths used a scale of 1 through 0 like Sargent and on a Russwin the depths used to follow the more conventional logic of the scale being 0 through 9...

CR systems get even more confusing when you factor in the keyway class and plug diameter of .509 or .552 where you would use different size bottom pins depending on the keyway and the plug diameter...

~~ Evan

[FarmerFreak]

It worries me slightly that someone who has a very detailed forensic locksmithing website seems unaware of the different bitting depth scale systems used by different lock manufacturers...

I'm not sure that this kind of information really helps when you are trying to detect if and how a lock has been picked or bypassed. ...But aside from that your information seems to be correct. And yes as you have stated, a 0 depth isn't always shallower than a 1 depth. There are a couple of manufactures that you have already mentioned where it is a deeper cut than a 9.

As far as I can tell you have a very good grasp on how masterkey systems work to.

[Squelchtone]

on a Corbin the depths used a scale of 1 through 0 like Sargent
~~ Evan

I noticed this terminology throughout the thread and it seems to be a sticking point. Is it possible we can just avoid a world of confusion by calling that 0 what it really is? It's a 10. And I don't know why Corbin or Sargent engineers ever thought that this was a good idea, other than maybe trying to keep to a 1 column part number to save space or ink when printing on boxes or baggies of pins. So instead of putting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 they just dropped the one and called it a 0? man, that's just F'in stupid. I would rely less on manufacturer's service manuals and promotional literature than I would on real world experience. Who knows man, maybe where ever you read about the ...7,8,9,0 they actually goofed up and meant to put 10 but who ever was typing didn't and it stuck.

There's always gonna be an oddball spec out there. If we're mostly talking about the norm, there's no point in bringing up the exception just to be the devil's advocate. If we were gonna do that, then we can also open the door to talking about the ASSA bitting being counted from the tip to the shoulder, not shoulder to tip like most normal keys are counted. These types of examples are endless.

Squelchtone

[Evan]

I'm not sure that this kind of information really helps when you are trying to detect if and how a lock has been picked or bypassed. ...But aside from that your information seems to be correct. And yes as you have stated, a 0 depth isn't always shallower than a 1 depth. There are a couple of manufactures that you have already mentioned where it is a deeper cut than a 9.

As far as I can tell you have a very good grasp on how masterkey systems work to.

It comes into play because if the attacker knows the specs of the locks, they could impression/decode the cylinder and then as a forensic countermeasure properly re-pin the lock to the same bitting to remove almost all forensic traces that the lock was tampered with and impressioned...

It helps to know the bitting depth scale if you are going to make use of a code cutter to help you do this process, and know how the manufacturer writes out its bitting codes as Squelchtone mentioned, some are bow-to-tip and some are tip-to-bow...

Thanks, it took me a while to learn the ins and outs of masterkeying I don't know how master keying works in many advanced locks work as far as developing a master key system (i.e. Keso or Kaba Gemini, Abloy disklocks, etc.) as I really have never been exposed to them before in an meaningful way, however I have dealt with all sorts of Corbin-Russwin, Sargent, Yale, Schlage and SFIC systems...

~~ Evan

[datagram]

I think the issue here is that you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with the depth systems of Sargent and Corbin (Pre-System 70)... ZERO does not mean the same thing to all lock manufacturers, in fact at least one doesn't even have a "0" depth at all...

Yes, I've acknowledged that systems can be different. My point is that regardless of the literal numbering the progression of components cannot exceed the MACS. The progression of bitting depth codes is what is important, not their assigned names/values. This is pretty obvious given some systems are 0-7, 1-6, 0-10, 0-1000000, A-Z.

It worries me slightly that someone who has a very detailed forensic locksmithing website seems unaware of the different bitting depth scale systems used by different lock manufacturers...

Completely unrelated, but good work with the personal attack!

MACS = Maximum adjacent cut specification

It means the biggest difference in bottom pin sizes for adjacent chambers. For example, a lock with depth 0-10 and a MACS of 7, you could not put a 0 pin next to a 9 pin. MACS exists to prevent back-cutting.

dg

In order for the above to be true the depth system would have to have 11 increment depths but it doesn't it has only ten depths numbered 1 through 0, you can not have a ZERO depth on both ends of the scale...

What? This is an imaginary system. It has eleven bitting depths, progressing from 0 to 10, and it has a MACS of 7. 0 is not a duplicate, because 0 is not the same as 10.

I've made it pretty clear what MACS is, but you are putting too much emphasis on a single system and its peculiarities. In short: it doesn't matter what you number things, or name them, as long as the MACS is followed. In the case of the 1-0 system, of course you can have 0 and 9 next to each other *as I clearly stated earlier*. Please start reading posts if you are going to reply to them. Here's a summary:

MACS = Maximum adjacent cut specification
It means the biggest difference in bottom pin sizes for adjacent chambers.

MACS defines the maximum value that two adjacent pins can be different by, defined in units of pin depth increments.

It doesn't matter what the pin depths are represented as.

It comes into play because if the attacker knows the specs of the locks, they could impression/decode the cylinder and then as a forensic countermeasure properly re-pin the lock to the same bitting to remove almost all forensic traces that the lock was tampered with and impressioned...

And yet...none of this has anything to do with what we're talking about. Of course someone can replace components, but that is not a foolproof (or terribly effective) countermeasure to forensics. There is still the case of wear on the components, tool marks on the plug/cylinder, the difficulties in properly disassembling/re assembling/reinstalling the lock without leaving a trace, and many other problems with replacement of components. In any case, the literal depth codes of each component provide little to no relevance in 99% of investigations other than to identify poorly combinated locks. In a replacement attack you could theoretically not even care about the literal pin sizes as long as they match whatever you replace in the lock. But you're probably more versed in forensics than I am, too, right?

I'm hoping that you can read up and get back to us with more thrilling insight. I've arranged this list of links in the hope that it might help you further your knowledge of pinning depth codes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_progression

Thanks again.

Hope it helped,
datagram