Master lock No. 570

[Fah_Cue]

i just bought one of these last night while walking through the hardware store because i wanted to get back to picking again (havent picked in many months).

And i found this lock pretty hard, (compared to my lockwoods 110/40's, which should be harder), which was great! all the locks ive tried to pick have only taken me a couple of mins to get, this one took me a while. I still find it hard to get which is great cuse i need to entertain myself somehow

anyone tried this lock? how did they find it? and has anyone cut one open to check how many spool pins are in there, i think theres atleast 3.

Also the lock has 2 holes on the side, one looks like its jsut for drainage, but the other looks like a hole with a top pin pushed into it. Whats that for?

[pinsetter]

I'm guessing that the pin you are referring to in the side of the lock is the cylinder retaining pin. It holds the lock cylinder in the lock body.

[dosman]

It took me much longer to get my 570 opened the first time, congrats! I think mine only has 1 security pin, I've not opened it to find out what kind of pin it is. The holes look like drain holes to me, I don't know what other purpose they might have.

Also, am I the only one to think that a higher security lock made of light-weight alimunum is silly? I haven't tried to drill or break my 570 but it seems a little flimsy, why go to the effort to put security pins in it? I guess it works fine as a lockout-tagout device, but again why the security pins? Lockout-tagout is for safety, not resistance to picking or theft.

[bfesser]

Drilled out the pin, it's a core retainer. Removed core, and drilled out cap on plug retainer in 6th position. Driver pin 1 is plain, 2-5 are spools. Key pins are plain master variety (slightly rounded top ends). Steel springs? Core appears to be nickel plated brass. Body is aluminum alloy. Standard hardened master shackle. Double ball bearing. Would be a decent lock, if it weren't for every package on the shelf at a local Menard's having the same keying.

It's definitely not designed to be rekeyed, but with a little care it could be done. Replace press fit brass plug retaining pin cap and maybe use a steel pin for the core retainer. For anyone considering purchasing one, they're key retaining, with no spring on the shackle or plug.

[chaos4zap]

I have a Master ProSeries 6835 that sounds similar to the lock you guy's are describing: Aluminum body, bright red and it has at least 2, maybe three spool pins in it. It is clearly designed for lock-out purposes, but it has an interchangeable core. I find that using TOK tension works best on this lock, I use a petterson pry-bar and usually don't have much difficulty. There is allot of play in this lock and once I get a false-set...the plug moves further than most locks. The good thing about no spring is that if the tension tool comes loose, the lock usually doesn't reset all the way and I can carefully insert the tool again and still have, at least some, of the pins I had set, still be set. My lock, since it has an IC core, has the key way recessed a little bit and that forces me to use the long side of the pry-bar. To further some of the points others are making, the most amusing part to me about these lock-out locks is that they are only as secure as the lock-out device it is being used on, and they are usually not very secure. I was a safety manager for a transportation company for many years and while working on trucks, the mechanics had to lock-out the keys to the vehicle. Usually, the would just bend the clasps on the lock-out device so it could just be slid on and off without even opening the lock. Lock-out is really intended to prevent accidental re-activation of equipment. If someone really wanted to reactivate the equipment on purpose, they would most likely attack the lock-out device itself, not the lock. Still, it's a fun and challenging practice lock. One additional note, on my lock...often time the lock will be picked and I won't realize it is picked. If you already went through one or two spool pins and it doesn't seem like anymore pins are binding...try just turning the tension wrench some more and you may find that it's already picked.

[Evan]

Usually, they would just bend the clasps on the lock-out device so it could just be slid on and off without even opening the lock. Lock-out is really intended to prevent accidental re-activation of equipment. If someone really wanted to reactivate the equipment on purpose, they would most likely attack the lock-out device itself, not the lock.

@chaos4zap:

Lock Out, Tag Out is more about safety discipline and being able to account for every worker who was working on a machine by means of having his/her own lock on the lockout device so that everyone must remove their lock before the machine can be reactivated...

Safety Guards on machines can be removed and jury-rigged to work in open positions also, but that defeats the purpose of having the safety guards on the machine...

OSHA would seriously object to either practice: modifying tag out devices so they could be removed without unlocking all the locks used with them and also disabling machine safety guards...

Someone who wanted to maliciously start a piece of machinery that was being worked on would just use destructive methods available to them in the machine shop/repair environment where cutters of various kinds and torches would be available...

This is why for serious lock out tag out applications interlock systems with the power supply equipment which require many keys and steps in a procedure to re-energize machinery after it has been serviced or repaired have been developed by companies such as Kirk Key Interlock:

<< External Link to Kirk Key Interlock website >>

~~ Evan

[chaos4zap]

I should have mentioned that my B.S. is in occupational safety and health (Safety Science) is the actual program. I'm well aware of what lock out is intended for, and OSHA's views on the matter. I suppose it's my fault for not properly explaining. When our guy's in the shop were altering lock-out devices, they were severely reprimanded. It was a practice common enough that it was one thing I always looked for during safety inspections. I didn't mean to give the impression that it was something we knew about and didn't really do anything about. LO/TO was always taken very seriously. I wish I could say that it was taken seriously because of a genuine concern for employees, but it was mostly due to our exposure to potential fines (very large company). They seemed to be content with doing the least amount possible to demonstrate "best faith efforts". Their overall lack of genuine concern often meant that any recommendations for improvements were met with heavy resistance. The lack of genuine concern for the safety of employees is a large reason why I left the company.