What is the numbering convention for tubular locks?

[ridinplugspinnaz]

I was thinking about this the other day, and it occurred to me that because tubular locks are, in fact, round, it probably gets really confusing when you are trying to talk about the nth pin in a lock. So how are the pins ordered / numbered? Is it clockwise or counter-clockwise, and from whose viewpoint (i.e. looking at the lock, or looking at the key)? I figured that a "9" cut probably acts the same way as it does on a pin tumbler key, in that it is the deepest cut you can make in the key... but if I'm wrong about that, let me know too.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit of a noob question, but I really know next to nothing about tubular-style locks...

[straightpick]

The pins are usually refered to in a clockwise order, looking at the lock. The first pin after the indexing mark, which aligns the key, is 1. Most tubular locks only have seven depths, 1 to 7, but a few use 0-6, with 0 being the shallowest cut. Unlike pin tumbler locks, the cuts go from shallowest to deepest. On some pin tumbler locks, a 9 cut is the shallowest cut!

[ridinplugspinnaz]

The pins are usually refered to in a clockwise order, looking at the lock. The first pin after the indexing mark, which aligns the key, is 1. Most tubular locks only have seven depths, 1 to 7, but a few use 0-6, with 0 being the shallowest cut. Unlike pin tumbler locks, the cuts go from shallowest to deepest. On some pin tumbler locks, a 9 cut is the shallowest cut!

That's interesting. It didn't even occur to me that there might be different bitting scales for tubular locks. My instinct for the pin ordering was that it would be clockwise from the index, but I did a little more digging and I found at least a couple tubular bitting decoders like this one:

http://www.lockpicks.com/tubularkeydecoder.aspx

and they seem to suggest that like pin-tumbler locks, the deeper you cut into the key, the higher the number it is. Interestingly, they also don't list a 0-cut. I guess it depends on the manufacturer? Like how BEST Access and a couple others number from tip to shoulder instead of shoulder to tip?

[raimundo]

Ace locks have depth of 1-7, fort lock company has depths of 1-8 or perhaps Ace has a 0 depth, I believe the two numbering systems are not substantually different.

[pickmachinist]

There are a couple different numbering systems. The pin lengths are the same, but the number given to that particular length is different. Fort Lock, such as the Gem and Apex locks go clockwise if you are looking down the barrel of the key from the tip. The Chicago Ace style goes counter-clockwise. Fort Lock numbers them from 1-8 while Chicago goes 0-7.

Fort Lock/Chicago Ace/Depth of cut
1----------0----------.016"
2----------1----------.032"
3----------2----------.048"
4----------3----------.064"
5----------4----------.080"
6----------5----------.096"
7----------6----------.112"
8----------7----------.128"

Hopefully this makes sense.

[ridinplugspinnaz]

There are a couple different numbering systems. The pin lengths are the same, but the number given to that particular length is different. Fort Lock, such as the Gem and Apex locks go clockwise if you are looking down the barrel of the key from the tip. The Chicago Ace style goes counter-clockwise. Fort Lock numbers them from 1-8 while Chicago goes 0-7.

Fort Lock/Chicago Ace/Depth of cut
1----------0----------.016"
2----------1----------.032"
3----------2----------.048"
4----------3----------.064"
5----------4----------.080"
6----------5----------.096"
7----------6----------.112"
8----------7----------.128"

Hopefully this makes sense.

Awesome, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info! I do have to wonder why Chicago Ace calls something that is milled down a "0-cut" though... seems very counterintuitive.