My Perspective on Master 1525 manipulation
I have toyed with many Master combination padlocks, and invented some unique techniques for combination finding that are a true credit to my name. Anyhow, I got bored and finally jumped on the ban wagon, and I thought I would learn how to crack the combination on the newest 1525 Master lock. I studied all the You Tube videos. Each one reminds me of similar videos where kids bump locks open (look even a kid can do it!). I feel the technique is somewhat of a dog and pony show. Apparently, Master redesigned the locking bolt to an anti-shim design, while solving one problem only to create another, and that is the ability to find a distinctive catch point on the first wheel of the combination. And, I'm sure it's been said before; the flaw isn't dominant in older locks. This explains why You Tubers are only demonstrating new locks (the ones I could find). Anyway, I bought an anti-shim, 1525 today and I was able to crack the combination on the first try. Each video explains "find the anomaly" within three patterns of ten for the third number (old news). That alone is what really takes the time. And, there's the "add 5 to the first number".
I took the mathematical approach (shown in early videos for finding the combo within a 100 tries) for finding the second number in the combination and morphed it into the modern manipulation method. I found it easier to just add 2 to the first number of the combination as a test number, and if that doesn't work, begin from that point in test increments of four. I know this probably old news too.
I really don't understand why Master would make their newest locking bolt so cheaply. In other words, I would be very interested to know what the shear strength of the anti-shim model is in comparison to the old shim-able bolt. Yes, this is a rhetorical question. Master has to try and solve the public bad press of lock shimming without increasing costs. Isn't the real problem a matter of some tool and die maker got the specs wrong and Master felt it wasn't cost effective to fix? It wouldn't be the first time. Or better yet, I would like to see someone do a You Tube video of both old and new 1525 models exposing the flaw on the first number, explaining why it occurs with one and not the other; having the lock cover removed would be helpful. Now that would separate the men from the boys (Sorry, lady on You Tube).
Also, can someone show a repeatable technique for manipulation of the older 1525's? I get three to four snag points for the first number test. I think it's because the third number tumbler is not in axis with the dial or the tumbler is out of round. But I know these points are in the zone on one particular lock. I would have to have more test locks to be sure.
I took the mathematical approach (shown in early videos for finding the combo within a 100 tries) for finding the second number in the combination and morphed it into the modern manipulation method. I found it easier to just add 2 to the first number of the combination as a test number, and if that doesn't work, begin from that point in test increments of four. I know this probably old news too.
I really don't understand why Master would make their newest locking bolt so cheaply. In other words, I would be very interested to know what the shear strength of the anti-shim model is in comparison to the old shim-able bolt. Yes, this is a rhetorical question. Master has to try and solve the public bad press of lock shimming without increasing costs. Isn't the real problem a matter of some tool and die maker got the specs wrong and Master felt it wasn't cost effective to fix? It wouldn't be the first time. Or better yet, I would like to see someone do a You Tube video of both old and new 1525 models exposing the flaw on the first number, explaining why it occurs with one and not the other; having the lock cover removed would be helpful. Now that would separate the men from the boys (Sorry, lady on You Tube).
Also, can someone show a repeatable technique for manipulation of the older 1525's? I get three to four snag points for the first number test. I think it's because the third number tumbler is not in axis with the dial or the tumbler is out of round. But I know these points are in the zone on one particular lock. I would have to have more test locks to be sure.