Master Lock's BumpStop

[Beyond]

That would make 3 reasons why it's more bump resistant....making it 3 times more bump resistant.

Assuming those reasons truly cut in half the normal bump key success ratio, yes.

[freakparade3]

I think everything is getting off track here. The focus should be on the fact that once again a lock company has promised a new more secure lock and once again it had been defeated by one of our LP101 family. Congratulations Beyond, impressive work. Is the anti bump pin always in the last chamber or is it random?

[Beyond]

I think everything is getting off track here. The focus should be on the fact that once again a lock company has promised a new more secure lock and once again it had been defeated by one of our LP101 family. Congratulations Beyond, impressive work. Is the anti bump pin always in the last chamber or is it random?

I don't know. I've only played with 2 displays. Both with different keys and both with 1's as the last cuts. The Anti-Bump website shows it in the last cut as well as in between the first and last cut, like MH said.

[mh]

My only guess is that out of X number of tries, X number of bumps, with a NORMAL bump key (999 cut, filed shoulder, etc.), were successful. I don't think they took into account any modified keys. Then again, I've only seen 2 with "1" cuts as the last pin.

I'm not sure, but I don't think a "normal" i.e. 99999 key will work at all.
Using this assumption then would make the lock indefinitely harder to bump. There must be a reason why they limit themselves to the number 4. Probably because people could leave "1" cuts on their keys. In up to 4 different positions maybe... But then again, I'm not a math genius.

[Beyond]

My only guess is that out of X number of tries, X number of bumps, with a NORMAL bump key (999 cut, filed shoulder, etc.), were successful. I don't think they took into account any modified keys. Then again, I've only seen 2 with "1" cuts as the last pin.

I'm not sure, but I don't think a "normal" i.e. 99999 key will work at all.
Using this assumption then would make the lock indefinitely harder to bump. There must be a reason why they limit themselves to the number 4. Probably because people could leave "1" cuts on their keys. In up to 4 different positions maybe... But then again, I'm not a math genius.

Neither am I.

Either way, it only takes a little ingenuity to get past one.

I'm sure it'll thwart the majority of mischievous bumpers out there who can only think through other people.

[stran9er]

So these new locks are 4 times resistant to Bumping but not Picking... Interesting, now that they have a lock that they say is 4 times more resistant to bumping, when will they make the lock that is 4 times more resistant to picking?

[freakparade3]

So these new locks are 4 times resistant to Bumping but not Picking... Interesting, now that they have a lock that they say is 4 times more resistant to bumping, when will they make the lock that is 4 times more resistant to picking?

With the exception of tougher warding and security pins theres not much they can do to make standard padlocks more resistant to picking. Theres alot of padlocks that are very, very difficult to pick, but they are alot more expensive. It all boils down to you get what you pay for. It will always amaze me that people will pay so much money for luxury items and secure them with cheap locks.

[stran9er]

Ah I see

[LeeNo]

My only guess is that out of X number of tries, X number of bumps, with a NORMAL bump key (999 cut, filed shoulder, etc.), were successful.

That is exactly where I was coming from with my earlier post (that instead of having to bump once, you had to bump 4 times).

I couldn't think of any other metric that made sense for them to come up with that number.

[mh]

Anyone remembers where that "high-speed photography / pins separate on their way up or down" thread has gone?

Thanks,
mh