Pickgun Protection - Does it work?

[Sennheiser]

Hello.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I wonder if it works in practice.

I hope the picture speaks for itself

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8181 ... ion0wl.png

Does that work IRL for protecting against pickguns, and if it does, why doesn't every lock manufacture pin their locks like this?

If it doesn't work, why doesn't it? It feels like it should work in theory, at least.

Thanks in advance.

[hzatorsk]

I am not sure the picture speaks for itself. It 'appears' the idea is that a third object in the pin stack would take on the momentum and keep the top pins from moving.

Try this... line up two pool balls (touching) and hit the first head on with the cue ball... only one moves away leaving the center one without moving. Mass leaving equal mass entering.

Now... take three pools balls and do it again. Notice how two of the pool balls remain stationary and the outer one moves. You hit with the mass of one ball... therefore one ball leaves.

Finally, again, take three pool balls in a line. It's kinda tricky to do, but push two balls simultaneously into the stack of three. Notice that two pool balls leave. Since the mass of two balls hit the stack of three... the mass of two balls leaves the stack of three. (the third doesn't really go anywhere!)

...that is why I don't think a very small mass above the top pins will offer significant protection. That is also why hitting the pins too hard with a pick gun can be counter productive to opening the lock.

I look forward to begin corrected!

[Octillion]

When a snap gun hits the bottom pins, it's not as if the bottom pins remain completely stationary and only the top pins fly up. All the animations I have seen seem to pretend that is what happens, but it is technically incorrect. Every single pin moves, it's just that the top pins fly up a bit faster than the bottom pins. When properly done, this allows for the gunner to rotate the plug at a point where all the pins are separated across the sheer line.

Adding small pins to the top of the pin stack is not going to do much, all of the pins are still going to separate. Adding a small pin to the top isn't going to take much of the momentum away from the other pins, and even with more massive top pins it should still be possible to use a pick gun, it just may take a greater snapping force.

[Sennheiser]

When a snap gun hits the bottom pins, it's not as if the bottom pins remain completely stationary and only the top pins fly up. All the animations I have seen seem to pretend that is what happens, but it is technically incorrect. Every single pin moves, it's just that the top pins fly up a bit faster than the bottom pins. When properly done, this allows for the gunner to rotate the plug at a point where all the pins are separated across the sheer line.

Adding small pins to the top of the pin stack is not going to do much, all of the pins are still going to separate. Adding a small pin to the top isn't going to take much of the momentum away from the other pins, and even with more massive top pins it should still be possible to use a pick gun, it just may take a greater snapping force.

That seems pretty logical!

Thanks for your exhaustive answer.

[p1ckf1sh]

The theory explained with the pool balls is correct, but Octilion is right as well. The animations showing only a clean separation of pins and stationary bottom pins are simplified. I think the problem is that pool balls all have the same weight and size. In a lock you have top pins of same height but different weight (if there are spools or maybe a "drill-resistant" pin that is made of steel instead of brass). And you have bottom pins of varying sizes, therefore the entire theory has too many variables to work like pictured in the pool ball example or Newtons pendulum.

While writing this I have a nice little idea... because in theory the "3rd object" would make sense. One would only have to balance it according to the pinstack, and it would have to be of some really heavy material to be compact enough. Picture this:

Regular brass top pin (no spool) = 1 weight unit
Regular brass spool pin = 0.6 weight units
Bottom pins (brass) ranging from 0.4 to 1.3 weight units

I am just using the term weight unit because I do not have absolute weights handy, I got rid of my precision scale when I sold my meth lab . The relations are more important anyway. Brass has a density of roughly 8.3g/cm^3. A pin stack can be at most 2.3 weight units, basically the weight of a little more of two regular top pins. To make a balanced "counterweight" you would need a little pin that has this weight but still fits into the stack without overcompressing the spring. Tungsten has a density of 19.26g/cm^3. So you could manufacture a counterweight from Tungsten that has the size of almost exactly one regular top pin, but has its weight balanced to be equal to the heaviest possible pin combination. The tungsten counterweight for the smallest possible combination (which would be a short bottom pin (0.4) and a spool top pin (0.6)) would be even less than half the size of a top pin. So the locks could be pinned and weighted accordingly in factory or by a locksmith. Maybe it would even be enough to only apply these weights to short pin stacks, maybe two of them, so there would be no risk of straining the springs etc.

Now, is anyone following me? This is all theoretical but I think this might make the pool ball scenario comletely applicable to pick guns but actually turn it against them. Because in this scenario I think only the counterweight would move...

Calibrate your sights, load your rifles. I am now crawling to bed and expect my theory to be shot down in flames.

[maxxed]

The variables that are introduced inside a lock such as friction from binding or misalignment can thwart good logic applied under ideal conditions. Now that I have said that, I would still like to see someone try what Pickfish has just described.

[lockedin]

Well, according to Datagram's presentation, that is the one of the other methods to prevent bumping apart from trap pins. Even if it doesn't work, good thinking in coming up with that idea independently.

[Gundanium]

You can push the pins up a little bit with a pick gun then launch the trigger, wouldn't be too hard to get that with a pick gun, generally you push the pins up a little anyway because it's the only way to work around the keyway fitting, so you can keep it flat on the pins.

[hzatorsk]

Hmmm... turning out to be an interesting thread.

Yes... I offered the pool ball analogy to show that the effect (in my opinion) is tied to the mass of the objects in question. Attempting to show that a very small mass above the top pins would (should?) be insignificant.

Consider this:

What if the springs were varied in the lock? (alot!)

It seems to me... the inertia force required to get that nice action on one pin stack would not be the same as required on an adjacent stack if the springs varied (considerably).

Perhaps... one of you lockies with a pinning kit and a pick gun could put together a little test:

Stretch out two springs and stuff it into a stack increasing spring tension and cut some other springs in half to lighten the tension.

I'd be interested if this makes the pickgun less effective.

[digital_blue]

It most certainly does hz. I'd be interested to see if someone with a decent electric pick can duplicate the process, but I've done the very same experiment you suggested in the past and found that I didn't have any luck with the pick gun after I'd changed the spring tensions.

db

[hzatorsk]

db,

Excellent... Good to know!

thankx

hz

[p1ckf1sh]

You can push the pins up a little bit with a pick gun then launch the trigger, wouldn't be too hard to get that with a pick gun, generally you push the pins up a little anyway because it's the only way to work around the keyway fitting, so you can keep it flat on the pins.

Maybe I am not getting what you say, but as I understand the laws of kinetic energy it won't make any difference. It would still only transfer the energy to the counterweight. If you have three pool balls touching each other and tap one of them, the one on the other end rolls away.

[digital_blue]

p1ckf1sh: That works, of course, on pool balls because they're all the same weight. If they were not all the same weight, you would get different results. For instance, take 1 pool balls that are touching and hit one of them with a cue. They will both move because the force from your pool cue is greater than the weight of a single pool ball. Does that make sense? Not sure I explained that well.

db

[p1ckf1sh]

p1ckf1sh: That works, of course, on pool balls because they're all the same weight. If they were not all the same weight, you would get different results. For instance, take 1 pool balls that are touching and hit one of them with a cue. They will both move because the force from your pool cue is greater than the weight of a single pool ball. Does that make sense? Not sure I explained that well.

I beg to differ. They will both move because you are pushing the first one after it has transferred the energy to the second ball, I think. If you were able to accurately hit one ball with a movement that is not "following through" but stopped hard just after touching the first ball, that ball won't move but transfer the energy and remain stationary..

In your example, I think the weight of the pool cue does not matter because it is guided and not moving freely. You could just as well use a chop stick to tap a pool ball, it will move, even though the weight of the chop stick is less then the pool ball.

We need a Doctor of Physics on here.

[p1ckf1sh]

Well, according to Datagram's presentation, that is the one of the other methods to prevent bumping apart from trap pins. Even if it doesn't work, good thinking in coming up with that idea independently.

Regarding the presentation by Datagram, did he present this idea as a possible scenario or did he mention that this in use in certain locks and works? So, is it theoretical on his part or proven to work?