Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:55 pm
Group 1--LaGard 1985
Let's start with a few pictures. Some are large data-wise.
The brass plate prevents viewing of the wheels and is probably meant for safecrackers of the black ski mask variety. It was removed.
You have probably noticed this looks almost identical to the LaGard 3332 in CPT1911's thread:
http://keypicking.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=8822
I would venture that they are fundamentally the same lock.
With the back cover off I have spun, watched, and listened. One thing I listened for was the sound of the fence contacting the wheels. The sound is slight but clearly defined. Or so I thought. I became absolutely convinced that the lever nose was touching the cam right before the fence made contact. I took a red marker and highlighted the area around the cam gate and then moved the dial back and forth through this area.
My suspicions were confirmed. While not particularly useful in itself, what I first thought was one sound (fence on wheels) is, in fact, two distinct sounds. Originally, I thought it was just mechanical noise from all the moving parts.
Now with lock in hand I tested some of my proposed hypotheses from the other thread.
The first was centering the roller on the tomahawk's corner and looking for deviations from norm on the dial when gates were under the fence or not. What I found was that there is far too much friction acting to place the roller consistently. The tomahawk corner is not sharp enough and the spring tension is not sufficient to "snap" the wheel left or right when unbalanced.
The practice fell short, so I decided to test the theory. While viewing the back of the lock I place the roller approximately on the peak of the tomahawk. Then, rotating the roller towards the flat side I watched for the first instance that the tomahawk moved back towards it's resting position. Placing my thumb securely on the cam I turned over the lock and checked where the indicator fell on the dial. I did this both with gates and without gate under the fence. The change in dial position is significant. If it was possible to blindly do this with only dial manipulation the lock could be manipulated open quickly. Oh well, it was a nice thought.
The second hypothesis was testing the dial's position when the fence falls on the wheels. On this lock that happens roughly at 94 and 12. Once again, viewing the back of the lock I held the cam securely the instant the fence touched the wheels and checked the dial. While not as significant, there is definite fluctuation in these contact points at random points on the wheel pack and with gates are under the fence. I believe this to be the most realistic way to manipulate the lock open.
Of course, to hear the CPs the dial needs to be rotated with enough force that the fence hits the wheels audibly. Consistently reading the dial while wiggling it back and forth over an increment length is an additional challenge.
Well, challenge accepted! Group 1 be damned. I'll do it in 19 hours!
Thanks for stopping by--take it easy
The brass plate prevents viewing of the wheels and is probably meant for safecrackers of the black ski mask variety. It was removed.
You have probably noticed this looks almost identical to the LaGard 3332 in CPT1911's thread:
http://keypicking.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=8822
I would venture that they are fundamentally the same lock.
With the back cover off I have spun, watched, and listened. One thing I listened for was the sound of the fence contacting the wheels. The sound is slight but clearly defined. Or so I thought. I became absolutely convinced that the lever nose was touching the cam right before the fence made contact. I took a red marker and highlighted the area around the cam gate and then moved the dial back and forth through this area.
My suspicions were confirmed. While not particularly useful in itself, what I first thought was one sound (fence on wheels) is, in fact, two distinct sounds. Originally, I thought it was just mechanical noise from all the moving parts.
Now with lock in hand I tested some of my proposed hypotheses from the other thread.
The first was centering the roller on the tomahawk's corner and looking for deviations from norm on the dial when gates were under the fence or not. What I found was that there is far too much friction acting to place the roller consistently. The tomahawk corner is not sharp enough and the spring tension is not sufficient to "snap" the wheel left or right when unbalanced.
The practice fell short, so I decided to test the theory. While viewing the back of the lock I place the roller approximately on the peak of the tomahawk. Then, rotating the roller towards the flat side I watched for the first instance that the tomahawk moved back towards it's resting position. Placing my thumb securely on the cam I turned over the lock and checked where the indicator fell on the dial. I did this both with gates and without gate under the fence. The change in dial position is significant. If it was possible to blindly do this with only dial manipulation the lock could be manipulated open quickly. Oh well, it was a nice thought.
The second hypothesis was testing the dial's position when the fence falls on the wheels. On this lock that happens roughly at 94 and 12. Once again, viewing the back of the lock I held the cam securely the instant the fence touched the wheels and checked the dial. While not as significant, there is definite fluctuation in these contact points at random points on the wheel pack and with gates are under the fence. I believe this to be the most realistic way to manipulate the lock open.
Of course, to hear the CPs the dial needs to be rotated with enough force that the fence hits the wheels audibly. Consistently reading the dial while wiggling it back and forth over an increment length is an additional challenge.
Well, challenge accepted! Group 1 be damned. I'll do it in 19 hours!
Thanks for stopping by--take it easy
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
