least object needed to open a lock?

Hi

I have seen in movies or comics a hero opening a lock with hair pins and such. How plausible is that in real life, for a lock or padlock that isn\'t very sophisticated? What objects could you use as improvised tools in order to open such a lock without destroying it?

Would your answer change if the setting was the 19th century and its locks? The novel I\'m writing is fantastic history, but I\'d like to keep details like that within the realms of realism.

A hammer. Why bother picking at it when you can obliterate it with one good strike if you're good?

I've had to do this at work. Don't bother picking at a fucked up or unknown lock. Just grab the hammer and swing away.

For simple locks, anything that can substitute an actual lockpick does the job. That means it has to be in a shape that would allow it to push the pin or pins correctly, and has to be made of something strong enough that it will set the pin instead of getting bent or broken instead.

If it is shaped properly and if it is strong enough then even a hairpin would do. However, it would happen to be a really unusually-shaped hairpin that is made of some weirdly strong material, as anything that you could bend on your own to make it "properly shaped for the job" is weak enough that it wouldn't do the job.

So really, the answer to that one depends on what exactly could be available to the character who is supposed to open such a lock, and on the exact specifics of said lock. Worst case scenario, you could have a female character (either the one who is trying to unlock whatever this thing is, or anyone with them) have an hairpin that had started as a lockpick and then been remade into a hairpin for whatever (mayhap sentimental) reason; you'd just have to have someone note that the hairpin is a tad unusual in its appearance when someone notices it, and you'd need to look at lockpicks and pay attention to the designs.

Also, if the character is actually supposed to be prepared for it, they might (instead of anything resembling a lockpick) have access to skeleton keys, which are something that had also served this purpose. Making one would probably require a visit to a blacksmith or any craftsman of similar sort, so it might or might not be a viable option, and the character would have to know something about locks to know what sort of skeleton key to request (and possibly know a craftsman who would not sell them out if anyone inquired about such stuff being done).

And the last but not least, if making some noise is possible, the brute force approach with a hammer or a cudgel will also work.

edited 12th Jan '15 6:51:09 PM by Kazeto

I assume your characters have to get into a lock owned by someone who doesn't like them in some way. Which leads me to the honest question: Why can't they just steal the key? That would a subplot, which could pad out the story (if you need it).

Or are you thinking of something universal and versatile for a bunch of situations?

"Or are you thinking of something universal and versatile for a bunch of situations? "

A. Fucking. Hammer.

The character is an old man who has been locked in the room of another main character. The security is not very strong because a) he's a physically frail old man (no old master or anything of the sort) and b) they don't know his past, which involved stealing and picking locks. He can't escape (there are guards outside, and he's not capable of stealth), but there is a locked chest that he needs to open in order for the story to advance.

Destroying the lock is out of his possibilities, and even if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be good if his captor returns and finds out his secret has been discovered.

As a side note, the captor is benevolent and innocent, not used to taking hostages or amuthing of the sort. I take it that's justification for the mistake of leaving the chest unmoved, rather than the Idiot Ball or Villain Ball

Go for the hinges. A chisel and a small hammer to pop the pins and pull the lid right off, no lockpicking needed. Works wonders on doors too. Pop the pins on the hinges the door comes right off no matter what the lock is. Any and all outward opening (or inward if you're on that outward side) doors and lids are vulnerable to this. Even heavily armored doors like on bank trucks.

EDIT: Oh hey! Quoteblock works again!

edited 12th Jan '15 7:35:12 PM by MajorTom

You're still completely missing the point, Major Tom. From the start, the OP talked about something that wouldn't destroy the lock. Yes, brute force works. But it's not always an option.

A very small hammer.

^^ It's always an option, it may just not be the correct one.

Besides in my most recent one I'm talking about the hinges of the chest itself. The lock can go fuck itself in that scenario.

>> As a side note, the captor is benevolent and innocent

I really don't want to rain on your parade, but if the character's "past" involved stealing and picking locks then I really doubt the word "innocent" can be applied to him. Benevolent, maybe. All-around nice guy, possibly. Unwilling to hurt others, sure. But innocent? Not really. If he had to steal and do that knowing that it's not exactly the right thing to do, if he had been pushed that far in his past, then regardless of what sort of person he is exactly, he had seen enough of the "ugly" side of the world for him not to be innocent.

>> I take it that's justification for the mistake of leaving the chest unmoved, rather than the Idiot Ball or Villain Ball

Again, sorry to rain on your parade, but that is a very nice ball you have there. Still, that in itself is not a problem. Humans make mistakes, and making mistakes due to overlooking something and having to make decisions quickly is fairly common.

And if that is the case, is the chest even necessary? I mean, if they are making a mistake, then it might as well happen that the chest isn't even locked for some reason or that whatever is supposed to be in it is hidden among stuff but easily accessible to those who are determined to find something. Or alternatively, can't it happen to be a room with some assorted junk amongst which there would be a lockpick of some sort? I mean, if they are trying to hide whatever is in the chest so badly then the chest needs to be inconspicuous, and thus it would probably be wiser to keep it in a room full of assorted junk than it would be to keep it just like that, standing in a room as the only object of note like some sort of attention beacon.

And besides, I mean, seriously, if I ever chose to lock anyone in a room with anything that I didn't want anyone to see, then the only case in which it could ever happen would be if that happened to be some sort of storage room and I just didn't have any better ideas. But unless I had to hide that person from everyone too (in which case I wouldn't assign guards but simply tie the guy up and gag him), it would probably be better to ... well, just tie him up and leave him with a guard with orders to hit the guy if he tried to escape.

>> but there is a locked chest that he needs to open in order for the story to advance.

I presume this is because this chest contains information, and only information, that the other man is trying to hide that will later be used by someone, either the old man or anyone else, to blackmail whoever hid it in the chest, to achieve something.

It sounds a bit ... contrived. But fine, I get that sometimes there are things which just have to happen, I would be lying if I said I never had to deal with stuff of this sort.

But my point is, well ... first of all, even if we take the character's past, as it stands now with what we know, there doesn't appear to be any reason for the character to try opening any chests. I mean, if there are guards and his freedom depends solely on the decision of whoever put them in that place, then he either is trying not to annoy that person or had already given up on anything and is just waiting for whatever happens. Unless there's something seriously wrong with that character, he should not think about that sort of defiance just for the sake of defiance, really.

Then there is the question of the reason for whoever put that character in there not to be able to learn of the chest's opening. Well, if they are paranoid enough to check if it's closed at every possible chance then they're probably paranoid enough to open the chest and check if nothing had been moved, in which case they'd learn anyway. And if they aren't that paranoid, then the very fact that the chest will not appear to be opened, along with the fact that they have a prisoner to take care of, will delay any action of checking if anyone did anything with the chest, possibly delay it enough that the men can already be beyond their reach.

So if anything, I'd start by asking yourself if it has to be a closed chest in those exact circumstances.

PS. Sorry if I sound harsh. I don't mean to be demeaning to you, it's just that, with what you wrote, if I read something exactly like that in a story I'd feel that it was unrealistically contrived, and you probably don't want it to be like that, hence the critique.

edited 12th Jan '15 8:02:40 PM by Kazeto

No worries at all!

The one who is innocent is the captor, not the old man captured. The captor is out of his depth, in a situation for which he is not familiar and hasn't had any preparation.

My idea was for the old man to open the lock, check the chest's contents, then put it back as if nothing had happened, not stealing its contents. What's important is the information contained in the chest, not the medium in which that information is stored.

EDIT: thank you for your observations, I can see you took my question seriously, and I appreciate it. It's possible that some of the possibilities you mention can enormously simplify matters, thanks.

edited 13th Jan '15 12:53:49 AM by Gamabunta