MACS, to follow or not to follow

[Eyes_Only]

I was just wondering, how many people here actually follow the MACS rule when they re-pin their cylinders for picking? In the past I have been abiding by this rule but recently realized here that if you disregard MACS it can make the lock much more challenging to pick. I've decided that from now on I'll pin my locks in whatever fashion I wish for this reason. What does everyone else do?

[UWSDWF]

I do

[JackNco]

I never really consider it but i guess i do tend to keep roughly to the rule.

[unbreakable]

I dont bother abiding by MACS when pinning for practice, but if I were to pin a lock to install I definetely would.

For anyone wondering what MACS is, its the maximum ajacent cut specification ( or something like that.. ). Basically, its the max height difference you can have between two pins.

So, if a lock has a MACS of 5, you can't have a 1 and 9 pin next to another (because their diff is above 5). However, you can have a 1 and 4 pin next to another.

[JackNco]

I always wandered what it stood for.

[mercurial]

When pinning a lock that is only for picking practice, I totally disregard MACS.

If I am working with a difficult lock, I will start by pinning it well within MACS, making for easier picking, to get a feel for the tolerances and feedback from the lock in hand.

As soon as I feel I need to make the lock more difficult, then I disregard MACS completely - this can really increase difficulty whilst picking, and improves your ability to deal with high-low combinations.

If you already know the binding order of the lock, you can deliberately position the high-lows so that they are even more difficult - make it so that you need to set the high pin after the low pin in front of it is already set.

I find this way I can get a lot more practice & experience out of a given lock, before it becomes too boring/easy, and gets put with the locks I only pick to remind myself I can still do it, after a few hours battling unsuccessfully against a far more difficult lock.

...Mark

[Wolfe]

I never bother with practice locks. I usually just pin them to suit my needs. However a lock that would be in use, always.

[Raccoon]

Lets just put it this way; If you want the lock to work with a key, you NEED to follow the MACS limits. You simply cannot cut a key beyond that limit*.

However, I think it's worth pinning a lock to its intended limits, and even using original manufacturer's pins, to make the practice lock more realistic and true to its nature.

*MACS takes into consideration the angle of the cutting wheel. If you use a very steep slope cutter, then you can get away with exceeding the MACS a little bit. Otherwise, you end up cutting into the neighboring cut effectively changing its value.

[Gordon Airporte]

I never cut keys, so that's not the thing, but if I won't be able to shim a lock open to bail myself out (if it's in a padlock i.e.) I'll keep the pinning reasonable.
The big problem, even with MACS violations, is knowing the pinning before hand. You know where you put the nasty bit.
It can be hard to find people to pin locks for you though. "Right Grandmom, you just put the pointy pins in here in any order you want..."

[WOT]

For practice cylinder do what you want.

Don't violate MACS if you're making a practical lock. It could cause rough key removal/insertion and increased wear.

[Raccoon]

For practice cylinder do what you want.

Don't violate MACS if you're making a practical lock. It could cause rough key removal/insertion and increased wear.

Sorry, the correct answer is, the key simply cannot exist beyond MACS. It would defy physics.

[Spike666]

Actually some keys can be cut beyond the mac limit for that mfg.
Saying that, you shouldn't. some have a much wider flat than nessasary for sloppy locks.some will work for some time till that small 1 or 2 wears to a 1.75 or 2.75+ then that key wont work.
I never try to key anything against the rules but reciently I had to ...
the university I was working for has mixed up keyways/sections/series/everything you can do to screw up a good masterkey system. they did. They have 2 full time locksmiths and they paid me alot of money to come in and take care of this big problem.

[n2oah]

If you exceed MACS, the key will (most likely) get stuck in the lock. That's where the fun of MACS ends.

[WOT]

For practice cylinder do what you want.

Don't violate MACS if you're making a practical lock. It could cause rough key removal/insertion and increased wear.

Sorry, the correct answer is, the key simply cannot exist beyond MACS. It would defy physics.

Sure it can. Schlage allows MACS of 7 and there are ten different depth, 0 to 9. There is no physical barrier preventing cut #1 being depth 0 and cut #2 being depth 9.

Factory design specs simply don't permit it. It's even possible to have a #12 cut (cutting far below past 9).

[Raccoon]

Sorry, the correct answer is, the key simply cannot exist beyond MACS. It would defy physics.

Sure it can. Schlage allows MACS of 7 and there are ten different depth, 0 to 9. There is no physical barrier preventing cut #1 being depth 0 and cut #2 being depth 9.

Factory design specs simply don't permit it. It's even possible to have a #12 cut (cutting far below past 9).

Again, I will disagree and explain why it defies physics...

Yes, you can pin a lock however you like. 1-9-1-9-1 would be fun to pick, but impossible to key on almost (absolutely?) every lock spec. Here's why.

When you cut a key, you're not only cutting a flat depth into the key, but you also create a slope on the fore and aft of the cut. The deeper your cut, the longer your slope. So say you cut a #1 depth, and next to it you try cutting a #9 depth. The slope created between the #9 depth and the #1 depth will actually pass through the #1 cut, turning it into a #3 or #4. The metal on the key is physically removed from the #1 cut; it no longer exists, and your key wont work.