LaGard 3330

[MeddlingKid]

Well, I have the unfortunate task of trying to open a LaGard 3330. I have identified the right contact point somewhere between 5-6 and the left contact point somewhere just under 99. I graphed the right contact point and came up with a chart. Looks like a high point at 26 and another range of high points from 36-44. I have read through many threads but am a little lost on where I should take things from here. Would very much appreciate any suggestions from posters here experienced with this lock.

[Cheesehead]

Well, I have the unfortunate task of trying to open a LaGard 3330. I have identified the right contact point somewhere between 5-6 and the left contact point somewhere just under 99. I graphed the right contact point and came up with the chart below. Looks like a high point at 26 and another range of high points from 36-44. I have read through many threads but am a little lost on where I should take things from here. Would very much appreciate any suggestions from posters here experienced with this lock.

Unfortunate task? If it's unfortunate, why not hire a locksmith to open your safe? Or what is the task exactly? Maybe tell us a bit about your safe/situation, I'm kind of curious now haha.

[MeddlingKid]

I say unfortunate task because this is my first lock manipulation and based on what I have read here these can be a bit of a challenge. But I do like puzzles and am excited to solve this. Would prefer to open it myself vs calling a locksmith.

[Cheesehead]

I say unfortunate task because this is my first lock manipulation and based on what I have read here these can be a bit of a challenge. But I do like puzzles and am excited to solve this. Would prefer to open it myself vs calling a locksmith.

I'd take a look through oldfast safe chronicles here and get used to parking wheels. Then park stuff around 92 probably.

[MeddlingKid]

I looked through the Oldfast chronicles and I am attempting to use the high/low approach, but will need to determine which points to start with.

[MeddlingKid]

I have tried parking wheels at 90, 92, 93 without any gate signature or further low points worth investigating. I may start from scratch and do another AWL chart, find the low points, and start trying to isolate wheels again.

[Cheesehead]

I have tried parking wheels at 90, 92, 93 without any gate signature or further low points worth investigating. I may start from scratch and do another AWL chart, find the low points, and start trying to isolate wheels again.

The graphs looked flat whichever wheel you placed there, or did some of them still have a shape? All succeeding graphs being flat is very unexpected. I would suspect if so that you did something incorrectly in your previous graph. Perhaps rescanning is best

[MeddlingKid]

I have tried parking wheels at 90, 92, 93 without any gate signature or further low points worth investigating. I may start from scratch and do another AWL chart, find the low points, and start trying to isolate wheels again.

The graphs looked flat whichever wheel you placed there, or did some of them still have a shape? All succeeding graphs being flat is very unexpected. I would suspect if so that you did something incorrectly in your previous graph. Perhaps rescanning is best

They were all pretty flat - Mostly within 1/4 of an increment. I re-ran the AWL graph and saw a very slight dip that I then ran a high/low test on which pointed toward wheel 2. But then when I tried to determine wheel 3, the graph was again flat (within 1/4 of an increment).

What am I doing incorrectly as I would have expected more variation.

[Cheesehead]

I have tried parking wheels at 90, 92, 93 without any gate signature or further low points worth investigating. I may start from scratch and do another AWL chart, find the low points, and start trying to isolate wheels again.

The graphs looked flat whichever wheel you placed there, or did some of them still have a shape? All succeeding graphs being flat is very unexpected. I would suspect if so that you did something incorrectly in your previous graph. Perhaps rescanning is best

They were all pretty flat - Mostly within 1/4 of an increment. I re-ran the AWL graph and saw a very slight dip that I then ran a high/low test on which pointed toward wheel 2. But then when I tried to determine wheel 3, the graph was again flat (within 1/4 of an increment).

What am I doing incorrectly as I would have expected more variation.

Mostly within a quarter of an increment, meaning some stuff wasn’t? I wouldn’t mind seeing that. Hard to tell what’s happening with so little information.

Until you find a gate the choices to make now will be much more subtle.

[MeddlingKid]

Here's what I've done the last couple days. First, I re-ran my AWL chart:

AWL.png

I then tried to confirm potential gates between 9-10, 64-72, and 80-86. To do that I parked 9,10, 67, and 83.5 at W1, W2, W3. Here's what I found:

Starting with 9 and 10. Although the graph wasn't going that low, it seemed to demonstrate a gate signature on wheel 1. So, I ran high/low tests and confirmed that wheel 1 was driving the pattern (contact area was widest on wheel 1 when running the high-low tests).

AL-9-9.png

AL-10-10.png

I then parked wheel 1 at 9.5 and isolated wheels 2 and 3 to see whether any additional gates could be identified. Nothing is really popping out here from what I can tell, though when running wheel 2 I only went in increments of 5 (rather than 2).

9.5-9_.5-AL_.png

9.5-AR-9_.5_.png

I looked at 69 and only thing slightly interesting was possible gate signature on wheel 1, or is this just random fluctuation given it's only changing 1/10 of an increment and goes back down again after the possible gate?

AL-69-69.png

I then decided to check whether I could get a gate signature on 83 or 84. When I ran 83-AR-83 and 84-AR-84, I saw something peculiar. Somewhat of an odd gate signature, but the lowest point I've seen yet in my graphing. When running high/low tests on 83 and 84 they did NOT show on wheel 2 but contact area was consistent across all wheels. What does it mean that 83-81-83 and 84-82-84 are giving me my lowest right contact point readings so far?

83-AR-83.png

84-AR-84.png

[Cheesehead]

Here's what I've done the last couple days. First, I re-ran my AWL chart:

I then tried to confirm potential gates between 9-10, 64-72, and 80-86. To do that I parked 9,10, 67, and 83.5 at W1, W2, W3. Here's what I found:

Starting with 9 and 10. Although the graph wasn't going that low, it seemed to demonstrate a gate signature on wheel 1. So, I ran high/low tests and confirmed that wheel 1 was driving the pattern (contact area was widest on wheel 1 when running the high-low tests).

I probably would have tested gates by parking at something like 90 and running the other wheel through the area, in isolation. Partly because the contact area seems in the way a little, although it's not too bad.

I then parked wheel 1 at 9.5 and isolated wheels 2 and 3 to see whether any additional gates could be identified. Nothing is really popping out here from what I can tell, though when running wheel 2 I only went in increments of 5 (rather than 2).

I don't think doing increments of 5 is warranted at this point, also I just don't believe in it. Yes it's possible for numbers to be set this way, although I've never personally encountered it (although I know people who have). I just think it's a low percentage thing to spend graphing time on

The other thing...why are you not taking readings in the forbidden zone? The last wheel isn't supposed to be set there. Doesn't mean it isn't, or that wheels didn't shift, or a most useful area isn't there. Test all the area of the wheel.

I looked at 69 and only thing slightly interesting was possible gate signature on wheel 1, or is this just random fluctuation given it's only changing 1/10 of an increment and goes back down again after the possible gate?

It showed up twice. If it only showed up once I might discount it, but this is twice back to back. That might be something. And I know I said that about 5's and 10's, but would you look at that, it looks like it's centred on 70. I might park that wheel there and see if you can't get a better reading on the remaining wheel. Or at least confirm your gate at 9-10

I then decided to check whether I could get a gate signature on 83 or 84. When I ran 83-AR-83 and 84-AR-84, I saw something peculiar. Somewhat of an odd gate signature, but the lowest point I've seen yet in my graphing. When running high/low tests on 83 and 84 they did NOT show on wheel 2 but contact area was consistent across all wheels. What does it mean that 83-81-83 and 84-82-84 are giving me my lowest right contact point readings so far?

[/quote]

83 area is looking not bad, although I though 90 looked better. Check out both those areas maybe?

I'm confused by your approach, why not run wheels 2 and 3 together after parking W1? Or did you just not show that graph?

I hope some of this helps, sorry it's a little scatterbrained

[MeddlingKid]

Forbidden zone - That's a great suggestion and I will start going through all numbers on all tests going forward.

69 - Given that this potential gate showed up on wheel 1, how would I test if I think I might already have a gate at 9.5 on wheel 1? Should I try testing 70-X-X, where X = same number on wheels 2 and 3, across the entire dial?

83 - What should I do to check these out further?

How I tested - I may have taken an incorrect approach, but when parking W1 at 9.5 for example. I would test 9.5-9.5-AL where AL = every 2 numbers on the dial (though I do need to look at the forbidden zone as noted above). Are you saying I should have tested 9.5-X-X where X = the same numbers for wheels 2 and 3, going through the dial to see if any gates appear (and if so, doing high-low testing to determine which wheel it's on)?

I sincerely appreciate your suggestions. I definitely need a more structured plan of attack as I tend to get easily distracted chasing what seems like a potential lead.

[MeddlingKid]

I ran some additional tests today, though I'm not sure I feel any more certain regarding gates on any wheels.

Set wheel 1 at 9.5, and then wheels 2 and 3 at the same point as I proceeded through the dial. For instance, 36 on the chart would represent 9.5-36-36. To do this, I turned AWL to 9.5, then landed on 36 (for example) a third time before turning back to the contact area to test the RCP. Possible gate at 53 or 59? Didn't really see much else illuminating here.

9.5-X-X_.png

I then tried to confirm the 9.5 gate on wheel 1. To do this, I would set wheel 1 between 4-18 while setting both wheels 2 and 3 at 90. Should this give me pause re: whether 9.5 on wheel 1 is an actual gate?

AL-90-90.png

Finally, I ran through 50-95 on each of wheel 1, 2, and 3 while parking the other two wheels at 90. Below are the three charts. Possible wheel 1 gate at 91-92? Wheel 3 test was interesting as I had some really low readings, but a massive range from 63-83 where none dipped below 5.1.

AL-90-90Xv2.png

90-AR-90.png

90-90-AL.png

[Cheesehead]

I ran some additional tests today, though I'm not sure I feel any more certain regarding gates on any wheels.

Set wheel 1 at 9.5, and then wheels 2 and 3 at the same point as I proceeded through the dial. For instance, 36 on the chart would represent 9.5-36-36. To do this, I turned AWL to 9.5, then landed on 36 (for example) a third time before turning back to the contact area to test the RCP. Possible gate at 53 or 59? Didn't really see much else illuminating here.

Yes I think 59 is worth parking on and giving a look. If nothing else, you've found a better area.

I then tried to confirm the 9.5 gate on wheel 1. To do this, I would set wheel 1 between 4-18 while setting both wheels 2 and 3 at 90. Should this give me pause re: whether 9.5 on wheel 1 is an actual gate?

I think I would keep 9.5 for now until you can no longer make progress on the other wheels. You'll know when you're not making progress anymore when the graphs go completely flat.

What I would do is try to to decide which wheel of the two you're checking belongs at 59, then find a good place for the last wheel. With all wheels much more optimized, you can go back and scan each wheel successively, until open. Probably in an ideal world it will take optimizing each wheel once, then scanning each wheel for gate

Finally, I ran through 50-95 on each of wheel 1, 2, and 3 while parking the other two wheels at 90. Below are the three charts. Possible wheel 1 gate at 91-92? Wheel 3 test was interesting as I had some really low readings, but a massive range from 63-83 where none dipped below 5.1.

AL-90-90Xv2.png

I was going to say it's too soon to go looking on wheel 1 again, but that dip at 92 could be the gate. You might want to try that as your wheel 1 parking area.
If it's a better place to park it should become clear fairly quickly.

I think it looks like your touch is getting more refined, these graphs look less scattered. Looks like progress to me.

[MeddlingKid]

I set wheel 1 to 83 and set wheels 2 and 3 to equal points on the dial (e.g. 83-51-51) and went through the dial. Showing a gate at 59-61. I ran a high/low test and verified the widest contact area is showing on wheel 2. So, I'm fairly confident that wheel 2 is 59-61.

83-X-X.png

I then parked wheel 2 at 59 and went through the dial, setting wheels 1 and 3 to equal numbers (e.g. 40-59-40). Showing a gate at 83-84. Ran a high/low test and showing the widest contact area on wheel 1. Starting to think wheel 1 is actually 83-84.

X-59-X.png

Finally, as suggested I parked wheel 1 at 92 and ran through the dial (e.g. 92-50-50). Didn't really see anything unless I'm missing something.

92-X-X.png

So, at this point does it make sense to just run 83.5-59-X and run the entire dial? Is there a quicker way to do that vs. just completely dialing 100 different combinations by going AL-AR-AL?