MACS Question

[manualf150]

I was wondering if there was an online or downloadable MACS verifier...? like say you type in some bitting numbers and say if it's a Schlage, it will be a MACS restriction of 7, and it checks to verify if it's indeed ok to use to rekey a lock to keep within a manufacturers MACS restriction 7 for a Schalge cylinder.

I'm just really surprised no one has (or at least I can't find one) created a simple little MACS restriction tool.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[maintenanceguy]

could easily be set up in an excel spreadsheet.

There are programs that generate/keep track of large master key systems. But they are too expensive if all you want to to is verify MACS.

The standard method is to just look at adjacent numbers and do quick subtraction in your head. It's quick to subtract single digit numbers.

[lock2006]

There are programs that generate/keep track of large master key systems
But they are too expensive if all you want to to is verify MACS.

That's what my friend wanted to do just verify Macs
but found out it will be to expensive to get a program to do this
so he just did the math on a paper and that did the work.

[manualf150]

Excel! Great idea!

What's the best way of doing it though... If my MACS knowledge is correct I'd say to do something like this to check(if it's Schlage for example):

Example Bitting: 91561
MACS=7

9-7=2
1-7=-6
5-7=-2
6-7=-1
1-7 =-6

then

2--6=8 <---Violates MACS for pin 1 next to that 9 pin
-6--2=-4
-2--1=-1
-1--6=5

Then have excel run a comparison of X>= 8 on those four calculations.

Sound about right? If anyone else can think of an easier way, let me know, please.

[MacGyver101]

I haven't tried much sharing via Google Docs before, so I hope the link works... but here's a sample spreadsheet that you could play with:

MACS Check - MacGyver101.xls

If you enter a valid biting code at the top, it will simply display the length of the bottom pins that correspond to that cut:

otherwise, it'll show you where you've violated MACS (or entered a cut number that doesn't exist for that key):

I slapped this together pretty quickly, and just grabbed a handful of pinning specs that I happened to have handy: feel free to modify it, add to it, etc.. (And, while I believe the pinning specs to be valid, I didn't attempt to double-check them: please use this at your own risk.)

[chriswingate]

Mac, that is an awesome spreadsheet you put together, I have downloaded it and added it to my collection of Docs and such on the subject. A great tool!

BTW: The link works fine, I had no trouble.

[thelockpickkid]

Hey Mac, is it okay if we copy this to our desktop? I think this is a really cool program and I want to use it.

[MacGyver101]

Hey Mac, is it okay if we copy this to our desktop? I think this is a really cool program and I want to use it.

Absolutely! Please make use of it.

If you want to add any other manufacturers/blanks, you'll have to "unhide" the four columns just after "Pin #7", in order to add the pinning specs.

[Evan]

Hey Mac, is it okay if we copy this to our desktop? I think this is a really cool program and I want to use it.

Absolutely! Please make use of it.

If you want to add any other manufacturers/blanks, you'll have to "unhide" the four columns just after "Pin #7", in order to add the pinning specs.

@MacGyver101:

That is quite a bit of IF...THEN statements there :-p

The only flaws that I have found with the calculations is that Excel won't let you pad a zero in front of a number so the spreadsheet won't work for any bitting starting with a 0... and...

The way "0" is being interpreted/treated differs in that I think Excel is only able to correctly calculate the MACS values when "0" is the shallowest bitting (the absence of value) -- if you look at the way it is calculating especially for the Corbin examples "0" should be the deepest pin a #10 and it is clearly calculating the pin size of the #0/#10 as smaller than a #1 bottom pin which should be an out-of-range error...

This would also effect the Sargent calculations as well... To correct this problem is beyond my programming/Boolean logical skills... (Logic was the one course I never took in college because I saw the homework one of my roommates was doing for it and I picked a softer option)

There must be some way for the calculations and logical arguments to be structured that would correctly interpret 0 as the shallowest number in most of the rows but also as the deepest in a few of them when that is appropriate... (I could see a similar problem arising if you created an entry for Assa which has the bitting numbers in reverse order with the deepest being #1 and the shallowest being #9)

Otherwise it is a quite brilliant quick bitting checker... As long as the locks involved obey certain rules until you work out that minor glitch...

~~ Evan