Determining Lock Picking Timelines for Operational Decision Making
Updated: 4 days ago
An Experimental Examination of Developing Non-Destructive Entry Timeline Windows for Special Operations
Author: Pat Watson
Abstract
The use of Non-Destructive Entry (NDE) during real-world tactical operations is possibly the least established discipline within the world of tactical breaching, behind almost every other practiced entry discipline: manual breaching, mechanical breaching, ballistic breaching, thermal/exothermic breaching, hydraulic breaching, and explosive breaching. This paper, and the series of technical white papers that it is a part of, is designed to provide a body of work that can serve to assist in onboarding tactical NDE to the wider tactical audience. The skillset and craft of NDE is a force multiplier, in well-trained hands, and has just as much width and depth to it as combat shooting, defensive tactics, and the rest of the breaching world.
One of the important concepts that amateur NDE practitioners often miss is the ability to establish a timeline window for the expectation of success of NDE during operations. Just as it is an important role of the designated marksman or a combat sniper to appropriately advise their team and command of their capabilities and limitations of their craft, so too must the NDE operator be capable of presenting accurate information concerning the likelihood of success of their NDE attempt, as well as how fast NDE might take, or how long it might take if the NDE operator struggles.
This paper is centered around five experiments that will help to show the reader, and new NDE practitioners, how one might begin to establish a database upon which to start building a better informed concept of what a professional timeline window estimate might look like. Then this concept will be expanded to explore the unique science and art form of operational NDE.
Keywords
Non-Destructive Entry (NDE); Tactical Lock Picking (TLP); Timeline Windows; Special Operations Forces (SOF); Tactical Breaching; Operational Decision-Making; Lock Picking; Entry Time Estimation; Covert Methods of Entry (CMOE).
Introduction
For operators utilizing Non-Destructive Entry (NDE) in real-world tactical operations, it is important that they be able to communicate effectively to the rest of their team the expectation for how long it might take them to open a specific lock, or to otherwise gain access into a structure that has multiple locked entry points. A single stated “average time” that it takes to open a lock without consideration of a likelihood of success or the potential for unexpected struggle, is not sufficient data upon which to make life-or-death tactical decisions.
Timeline Window: An estimate of an operator’s likelihood of successfully opening a locked obstacle, including the fastest and slowest anticipated opening times, based on available data and known variables.
For operators utilizing NDE, it is not recommended that they treat their lock opening data as strict statistical definitions for mean or median, but rather general concepts that can be leveraged quickly and under high stress. This paper will utilize layman’s definitions for statistical-type references.
This paper is a part of the ongoing effort to provide relevant data and other catalogued information to the tactical world concerning this often misunderstood skill set, and how it can function as a force multiplier when applied with knowledge, experience, and within a well designed and well established operational framework.
An experienced NDE operator should be aware of the concept that an NDE attempt might be effective but not efficient (successful but slow), or efficient but not effective (not likely to work, but will work quickly if it does), or both fast and likely to work, or neither effective nor efficient. High-level NDE operators should also be taking into account, for whichever types of NDE entry attempts they are considering, whether the type of attempts are appropriate within the context of the mission.
If an inexperienced NDE operator intends to utilize NDE on an operation and only thinks in terms of “This lock should take me thirty seconds to open,” then that thought process, or statement to teammates, does not take into account the likelihood of success and does not take into account how likely a fast or a slow entry might take. These estimates concerning likelihood and speed are important factors to consider when making tactical decisions during operations.
Lock picking (and other NDE techniques) is not supposed to work. Most machines are designed to introduce “Input A” into “Machine A” in order to get “Output A.” In the science and art form of NDE, the goal of all practitioners is to attempt to introduce “Input B” into “Machine A” in the hopes of getting “Output A,” then assessing their progress and moving forward. Then trying “Input C,” and assessing, then potentially combining “Inputs B & C” for an attempt, and so on.
If practitioners, their teammates, or their commands don’t understand the non-linear nature of this skillset, then incorrect assumptions about entry attempts can make it difficult to leverage NDE in high-stress CQC environments.
This paper is designed around five different hands-on experiments that will show examples of baseline data that can be used to develop a timeline window, as well as showing how a well-trained and experienced NDE practitioner can leverage decision making during their attempts in order to affect their timeline window in real time.
The purpose of this paper is to help NDE practitioners, future practitioners, tactical teams, supervisors, and other researchers understand that NDE attempts don’t have a single fixed value of time or likelihood of success. A single individual “unique” lock, picked open multiple times by the same practitioner, using the same tool and technique, doesn’t always result in a clean average entry time. Specifically when it comes to the “raking” technique that this paper focuses on, the same unique lock, attempted repeatedly, can sometimes open within a few seconds, or occasionally it can take several minutes, or it can result in a complete failure to open no matter how long a technique is attempted.
Additionally, another lock of the same make and model, from the same manufacturer, sold within the same box packaging as the previous lock might be openable with the same tools and techniques with a consistent average opening time that is sub-10 seconds. And yet another lock from within the same packaging can be consistently troublesome and might rarely open no matter how many attempts are made.
Another purpose of this paper is to show that while having or building skill regarding the employment of entry techniques is certainly valuable, there are other factors to consider. There are a number of field application concepts that NDE practitioners can leverage during their NDE attempts, outside of the hands-on hard skills, that can have an immediate positive impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of their process.
Another goal of this paper is to show tactical NDE practitioners, as well as the tactical community at large, that lock picking and NDE methods can be incredibly fast and reliable but they are not magic. The world of NDE is unique from many other tactical disciplines in that its tools and techniques are not supposed to work, and that their effectiveness and efficiency profiles can still be useful even though they often contain processes that are non-linear and difficult to pinpoint.
The five experiments that this paper is centered around only utilize a pool of 10 padlocks. The make and model of these padlocks is the “Master Lock #3 padlock.” Some of them are new and some of them are much older and worn from time and use. Some of them came out of the same multi-padlock packaging. These padlocks were all picked “in-hand,” and not mounted in a vice or shackled around any type of hasp or chain etc.
The first three experiments are conducted using only a single lock picking toolset, the “Bogota® Ti Rake 45” set from Southern Specialties. The only technique used by this toolset is a “raking” technique, not a “Single Pin Picking (SPP) technique. In Experiments 4 & 5, additional Non-Destructive Entry (NDE) tools and techniques become available for use in the experiments, including but not limited to, bump keys, SPP hooks and additional tension wrenches, additional rake profiles, pick guns, and other tools.
While destructive entry is usually considered a primary consideration during real-world tactical entry operations, this paper does not allow destructive methods to be utilized within any of its experiments.
Ollam eloquently states, “Unlike the precise science of [SPP] (which could be said to be like baking… follow these steps in a specific order and you usually get a predictable, successful result), raking is more of an art (like cooking… you use your best judgement and experience gained in the past to whip up something that you hope goes over well for all involved)” (Ollam 2012, 71).
With beginner-level raking requiring a lot less fine-motor skills and specific in-depth lock knowledge in order to start achieving openings on low-security locks, along with a likelihood of rapid success, but a back-end requiring time spent “in the kitchen” in order to make to most of the technique, it makes a great candidate for a primary technique that is taught to special operators early in their NDE certification courses. Raking gives SOF operators a tiny covert-sized toolset that requires a small amount of training onboarding time in order to start making rapid successful entries in the field. And, while it can at times be unpredictable, and while it requires experience in which to make the most of it, it comes with its own application concepts, its own levers that can be pulled in order to make the most of the technique, things like knowing when to switch your raking technique to a different lock, and when to switch away from raking and towards a different tool and technique.
This sentiment concerning the unpredictability, but still useful, technique of raking is mirrored in Locksport: A Hacker’s Guide to Lockpicking, Impressioning, and Safe Cracking, “For competition purposes, we recommend you focus on mastering single-pin picking instead of raking… Single-pin picking works in a repeatable way, whereas with raking, a certain amount of luck is always involved. That said, mastering raking means sometimes you’ll be able to open locks very fast, which can be an advantage” (Weyers et al. 2024, 91). There are many disciplines in which luck is regarded as a large factor in success, but that doesn’t mean that those disciplines are not useful. Many luck-involved disciplines have volumes and volumes of encyclopedic knowledge supporting ways that those engaged in said disciplines can progress towards mastery.
While the world of lock picking is expanding its knowledge base, particularly in the practice of lock picking as a hobby, and physical penetration testing, the world of concepts concerning the field-application of NDE for tactical operations is strikingly small. This paper is one small part of the effort to bring this unique discipline to SOF operators, who are often extremely limited in their resources during operations and must make the most of the options they have at hand.
There are many other NDE tools and techniques that carry significantly different effectiveness and efficiency profiles. Their timeline windows can be skewed very heavily towards repeatable and reliable entries that consistently produce openings within only a few seconds. While this paper’s primary focus is to use the raking technique as its base study, the data and the conclusions drawn from this paper should not be interpreted as applying to all of the different NDE tools and techniques.
High-level NDE operators should be aware that there are multiple competing and collaborating timeline windows to consider during operations, and not just the timeline window concerning the likelihood and potential time limits that a lock opening might take. Other timeline windows might include: how long it might take a keyholder to respond to the scene with a key, how long it might take to employ destructive entry, how long it might take to perform a full Target Assessment or perimeter walk-around to assess other potential Attack Vectors for potential NDE attempts, as well as other considerations that concern making tactical entry through locked obstacles.
This paper is designed to serve as a primer to explain to the reader the basic effectiveness and efficiency that make up an NDE timeline window estimation for a single make and model of padlock, as a baseline example.
Five Experiments: Developing and Understanding Timeline Windows
Multiple Experiment overview:
The following experiments were designed to highlight different operational factors when it comes to the developing timeline windows for operational Non-Destructive Entry.
First, a baseline will be gathered for each of the 10 padlocks in this test, which will show a timeline window estimate for each lock as well as a timeline window across multiple locks. Then, variables will be added or removed for follow-on experiments in order to gather data concerning an NDE operator that is able to make different decisions concerning the opening attempts.
Attempts in these experiments, and likewise in the field, might not end in a successful entry, they might end in the operator notating Did Not Finish (DNF) or Did Not Attempt (DNA). A DNF might occur for many different reasons, it might be a skill issue, or the lock might be stubborn for a known or unknown reason, or an entry attempt might be aborted in favor of a different entry method. A DNA, for these experiments, would mean that the experiment ended before the operator was even able to touch the lock.
For tracking lock entry data, DNFs will not be treated as infinite, since that would skew averages, or might take exceedingly long if every lock required an opening. Each experiment will state its time limits for how long the operator has in order to attempt the opening attempt for the locks.
Experiment 1: “10 Unique Locks Opened 10x Each”
For experiment 1, 10 unique Master Lock #3 padlocks will be tagged with unique identities, A-J, and placed into a bag. A timer will be set for 10 minutes. Upon the start of the timer, the NDE operator will reach into the bag, blindly, and grab a padlock and attempt to open it by using only a raking method, with a set of Bogota 45s. Once the lock is opened, or the timer ends, the lock’s identity and the time of opening will be recorded. The experiment will end once all 10 locks have been attempted 10 times each.
A cursory scan of the results will tell you that there were 10 attempts where the NDE operator was unable to open a specific padlock. That is a clean 90/100 for success rates. Additionally, most of the recorded times were less than 1 minute, with a few results recorded at more than a minute. These generalizations are more than adequate for the purposes of high-level NDE operators in order to start to build their own databases for timeline windows that can be referred to when asked about expectations in the field.
Figure 4, above: This pool of opening times shows all 10 opening attempts for Padlock A.
If a new practitioner has only ever learned one technique with one tool, and has only tried to open a single unique padlock (Padlock A) 10 times, then the information from figure 4, above, is the only data they would have to draw upon when they approached another similar padlock in the field. The practitioner would correctly assume, based upon their data, that they have a roughly 30% chance of opening another random Master Lock #3 padlock, and if it does open then they might get lucky immediately, but if not, it might take them nearly 10 minutes of raking.
Figure 5, above: The dataset for 10 openings of Padlock F.
In stark contrast, the dataset for Padlock F shows a very different profile of times. If Figure 5 were the only dataset that a new NDE practitioner possessed, they would rightfully estimate, when approaching another random Master Lock #3 padlock in the field, that they have a 100% chance (or 99%, leaving room for error) of opening the targeted lock, and if it didn’t open within the first 20 seconds, it wouldn’t take them much more than 60 seconds to produce a successful opening.
Figure 6, above: The datasets for Padlock A (left column), and Padlock F (right column), each opened 10 times with a time limit of 10 minutes until a DNF is recorded.
If the practitioner has only ever attempted to open up these target locks, (Padlocks A & F) only 10 times each, then based off of this dataset they could correctly assume that the next lock they encounter would have roughly a 50/50 chance of opening the lock successfully within 30 seconds, or not at all.
However, when a much larger dataset is acquired, a much more clear picture can be painted.
With the information across all 10 locks, with 10 recorded entry attempts, documented in the heat map (figure 7) an operator would now be able to more correctly assume, based on their experience, that they have a 90% chance that they can open their next targeted Master Lock #3 with a raking technique with their Bogota 45 set, and if the lock does open, it will likely take less than 30 seconds. If it doesn’t open within 30 seconds then they probably wouldn’t want to spend more than 3 minutes before seriously reassessing their plan.
"Based on Figure 7, this operator likely has a 90% chance that they can open a random Master Lock #3 padlock with a raking technique with their Bogota 45 set, and if the lock does open, it will likely take less than 30 seconds. If it doesn’t open within 30 seconds then they probably wouldn’t want to spend more than 3 minutes before seriously reassessing their plan."
This (above) is a text-book formatted timeline window that a team should expect to receive when they ask their high-level NDE operator “How long will it take you to get us into this with your NDE?”
It is not possible to weigh all of the situational variables that would affect an NDE operator in their attempt at entry. There are some clearly tangible variables like the make/model/year of lock, the NDE tools that the operator has on hand, and maybe the weather/environment. But there are also other variables that are impossible to see, like the microscopic differences from lock to lock, or security measures inside of locks that are unexpected, or rust and damage inside of a lock, or even things like how tired the operator is, or what mental state the operator is in.
What can be weighed is that when known variables are adjusted, the results of NDE attempts can be altered. And with more data, and more experience, a professional NDE operator can more accurately hone in on their estimation of success and their estimation of the boundaries of their timeline when communicating with their tactical teams.
Experiment 2: “10 Locks, Opened Once Each, Strict Order, Single Toolset.”
This experiment is designed to mirror a situation where an NDE operator must attempt entry through 10 different entry points, and where the operator either cannot or chooses not to utilize multiple NDE tools, and cannot or chooses not to switch between different entry points upon finding their current lock a struggle.
The 10 locks are placed in a random order then a 30 minute timer is started. Then the operator attempts to open the first Master Lock #3 padlock utilizing only the Bogota 45 rake set. If the lock is opened, its unique ID and the time that it was opened is recorded. If the lock is not opened, the operator must continue working the same lock with the same tool/technique until the timer runs out.
In Experiment 2, five padlocks were opened in quick succession, all within 2:50. Then there was a light struggle of 2:16 until an opening with Padlock A was achieved. Then there was a 4:11 struggle to open Padlock C. Then 28 seconds later, Padlock G was opened.
20:15 were spent on Padlock H which was left DNF, not opened within the 30 minute timeline. Padlock B was not even attempted (DNA). This is actually a pretty lucky randomized spread of the padlocks. Even without having to perform the experiment again, a different perspective on the data is easy to show. If Padlock H had been the first padlock attempted, it might have pushed the first opening past the 20 minute mark, having wasted most of the available timeline on a single lock. As many high level NDE practitioners can attest, luck does still play a part.
This experiment resulted in 8 padlocks opened within 9:45, and the remaining two padlocks were left with one DNF and one DNA.
This experiment, Experiment 2, will serve as the baseline for the rest of the experiments where we will add in the ability to switch to different locks, then the ability to switch to a different NDE tool and technique, and then Experiment 5 will provide the operator the option to do both.
Experiment 3: “10 Locks, Opened Once Each, Any Order, Single Toolset.”
This experiment is designed to mirror a situation where an NDE operator must attempt entry through 10 different entry points, and where the operator either cannot or chooses not to utilize multiple NDE tools, but they are able to switch (or they remember to choose to switch) between different entry points upon finding their current lock a struggle.
The 10 locks are placed in a random order then a 30 minute timer is started. Then the operator attempts to open the locks in any order, starting with the first Master Lock #3 padlock, utilizing only the Bogota 45 rake set. If the lock is opened, its unique ID and the time that it was opened is recorded. If the lock is proving stubborn to open, the operator may switch to a different lock at any time of their choosing without restriction until the timer runs out.
These results from Experiment 3 and the results from Experiment 2 are not too dissimilar. While it may appear that Experiments 2 & 3 both appear to have 8 locks opened within roughly 10 minutes, leaving two locks unopened, there are two important improvements that can be pulled from this data.
Two locks at the end of Experiment 3 were both DNF, which means that they were both allotted hands-on time and both were attempted, which is a better use of time. Neither were left DNA.
The changing out from one lock to another was not tracked. Several times throughout this experiment, a lock proved to be frustrating after hitting the 30 second mark, and another lock was picked up and almost instantly popped open. This chart very well could have looked much worse if the operator did not switch to another lock upon finding their current opening attempt to be stubborn.
If this experiment was performed multiple times, and with more locks, and across a longer timeline, it is likely that the ability to switch locks would show successes at a much more regular pace on the timeline, resulting in most of the openings completed towards the beginning of the timeline, and leaving fewer locks untouched or unopened at the end, in contrast to the Baseline of Experiment 2.
Experiment 4: “10 Locks, Opened Once Each, Strict Order, Multiple Toolsets.”
This experiment is designed to mirror a situation where an NDE operator must attempt entry through 10 different entry points, and where the operator either cannot or chooses not to switch from lock to lock upon finding their current lock stubborn to open, but where they do have, or they do choose to utilize multiple NDE tools.
The 10 locks are placed in a random order then a 30 minute timer is started. Then the operator attempts to open all locks in strict order, starting with the first Master Lock #3 padlock utilizing any NDE tool/technique in their loadout. If the lock is opened, its unique ID and the time that it was opened is recorded. If the lock is proving stubborn to open, the operator may switch to a different NDE tool/technique at any time of their choosing without restriction until the lock is opened or until the timer runs out.
Padlock H has proven stubborn for the entirety of this paper, and continues to be stubborn here. However, being able to switch tools and techniques limited it to less than 4 minutes of stubbornness before it was opened. Padlock A has proven to be the most stubborn, and took approximately 10 minutes of trying different tools and techniques until it was able to be opened.
The tool and technique that opened Padlock A ended up opening all of the rest of the padlocks. The solution for the last several padlocks was a slightly better fitting and better shaped tension wrench, and a slightly different rake tool. This highlights another core curriculum block for UTAC’s TLP, which is “Tension is King.” A bump key attack was tried in vain, Single Pin Picking (SPP) was attempted for about one minute total with no success, and then a better fitting tension wrench carried all seven of the last openings. These last seven openings were all very efficient openings. It is important to note that when an NDE operator finds a toolset that is proving to be very effective and very efficient for a particular type of lock, that operator should pay close attention to that toolset and lock pairing in regards to future operations.
Experiment 5: “10 Locks, Opened Once Each, Any Order, Multiple Toolsets.”
This experiment is designed to mirror a situation where an NDE operator must attempt entry through 10 different entry points, and where the operator is able to, and chooses to switch from lock to lock upon finding their current lock stubborn to open, and where they are able to or they choose to utilize multiple NDE tools.
The 10 locks are placed in a random order then a 30 minute timer is started. Then the operator attempts to open all locks in any order they like, using any technique that they like, starting with the first Master Lock #3 padlock. If any lock is proving stubborn to open, the operator may switch to a different NDE tool/technique or to other locks at any time of their choosing without restriction until the timer runs out. Once any lock is opened, its unique ID and the time that it was opened is recorded.
Figure 11 shows the largest shift so far in all of the previous datasets. Here, the leveraging of smart decision making has had a drastic and positive effect on the results for the locks in this group.
As soon as the practitioner found themselves working on a lock for more than thirty seconds, either the tool/technique was changed, or a different padlock was picked up, or both. Experiment 5 shows tight grouping of openings, back to back on this timeline, very early upon the start of the timer. This allowed the most likely tools and techniques to be leveraged against the locks that were the most likely to open. Leaving the two slightly stubborn locks, Padlocks H & A, able to receive the largest amount of attention without leaving other easier-to-open locks waiting on the sidelines.
It is possible that a hobbyist with similar hard-skills (using tools and techniques on specific locks) utilizing the same tools and techniques on the same locks would have a much longer and much more sporadic timeline than someone with higher level operational NDE concepts training. This doesn’t mean that the general lock picking hobbyist is not skilled, on the contrary, many of them are picking locks that are rated at extremely high security levels. This argument posits that if the hobbyist was engaged in Experiment 5 without being able to leverage any experience when it comes to operational decision making concepts, they may find themselves more likely than the high-level operator is to end up spending too much time with a single stubborn lock or a single technique that is proving ineffective.
Even very advanced and very experienced lock pickers can get stumped on a basic lock from time to time. Not only is it an operational skill to know how to make the most of your time by switching to other entry points (attack vectors) and switching to other tools/techniques, but it is also an operational skill to know when to abandon NDE efforts in support of destructive entry methods, or other means.
These five experiments tend to show that any time an NDE practitioner exercises decisions to avoid tunnel vision, and to switch locks or to switch tools and techniques, improvements over Experiment 1 were made.
For Experiment 2, with 10 locks picked in order, once each, with a single tool/technique, there were two locks left unopened, one of which was never even attempted.
For Experiment 3, with 10 locks picked, once each, in any changing order, but only with one tool/technique, the ability to switch from lock to lock showed similar results, but for the two locks unopened, at least both of them were able to have time spent on them for entry attempts.
For Experiment 4, with 10 locks picked, once each, in rigid order, but with the ability to leverage any NDE tool/technique at any time, we still see a similar spread but there is a very tight concentration of locks picked back-to-back. We also see that all locks were opened, and that they were all opened in less than 20 minutes.
For Experiment 5, with 10 locks picked, in any changing order, utilizing any NDE tool/technique, switching locks or techniques at any point in time, we see the best results. With the practitioner here able to practice decision making concerning switching locks and techniques, we see nine padlocks, all opened in less than 6 minutes. And the 10th padlock, proving difficult, was eventually opened resulting in all ten locks opened in less than 13 minutes.
The greatest takeaway from this data is: if, during a real-world operation, multiple entry points provide access into the same structure, (ie front door, side door, back door, all leading into the same house) then the NDE operator’s job is done as soon as the first lock is picked, not ALL locks. So, finding the best tool and technique for the best entry point can have a huge effect on an operator’s NDE timeline window.
Timeline Windows are Not Fixed
Sports are a great relational metaphor for explaining lock picking effectiveness and efficiency, how likely a lock is to be opened and how long it might take. A competitive sport shooter might fire 1,000 rounds at a stationary target from the same distance, using the same firearm and shooting position, and achieve exceptionally consistent results. However, that performance alone cannot reliably predict how the shooter will perform during a competition (or a combat shootout) involving movement, multiple targets, changing distances, awkward positions, and time constraints. A shooter with experience across many different stages has a more representative foundation for estimating their performance.
Those 1,000 rounds are still very useful data, and it is still very important practice that can spur growth. But, repetition under one specific set of variables is not equal to a depth of experience.
One unique lock, picked one time, using only a single tool and technique, in a single environment, is in fact data. But, it is not enough data to plan an operation around it. One unique lock picked 10 times but in the same environment is a better starting point, but still not operationally-reliable data. Multiple similar locks picked open using different methods multiple times, in multiple different environments is a much better way to be able to reliably hone in on an NDE operator’s capabilities, and therefore allowing the operator to make much more reliable estimations of their timeline windows, allowing much better informed operational decisions.
This doesn’t mean that an operator should not try to open a lock during an operation if they have no data on the lock, or only a small dataset. But, an operator should be honest with themselves and honest with their team when it comes to expectations. To say “I don’t know if I can open that lock and I don’t know how long it might take” is a perfectly professional statement to say during an operation.
"One lock picked successfully 1,000 times may represent only one experiential “data point,” while working multiple similar locks under different constraints can provide a vastly larger pool of useful experience."
A student of operational NDE can attempt these 5 Experiments on the first morning of their first day of NDE training, then with only a single day of training, provided by a high-level instructor, they can often improve their timeline results by the very next day of training, taking an average of half as much time as their first recorded attempts. Skill level changes over time. Skill level can also have unexpected peaks and valleys, as progress is not always linear; just like a sports star can be objectively the best scorer in their league, but can miss several attempts on goal in a single sustained string of attempts.
Manufacturers are constantly changing the internals of their locking systems without changing the externals of their locks, or at least without allowing operators to see through the locks to the inside, hiding the internal security features from visible identification. Locks pick up damage from excessive wear or from being left to weather in the environment for too long. The landscape that an NDE practitioner certifies on, and initially trains for, might not be the landscape for locking systems that exists 10 years into the future when a new manufacturer emerges and pushes their product heavily onto store shelves within a specific region. This can have a large impact on the effectiveness of NDE operators and their timeline window estimates, if they are not prepared.
Tools become broken, lost or forgotten. Operators get tired. The weather can take a toll on the whole team.
The insertion, adjustment, or removal of any number of variables into these experiments, or into real-world entry attempts, can drastically change the time it takes an operator to achieve successful entry into a physical structure. There is no “single point in time” that can be used for an estimate to entry. A proper timeline window should always take as much data into account as possible and should include a likelihood of success, and a slow and a fast opening estimate.
If a certified NDE operator is sitting in a briefing room with their team and their command and a reconnaissance photo of a lock is brought up on screen, and the NDE operator is asked “How long will it take you to pick this lock,” there should not be a single time amount given. A professional, highly-trained, experienced NDE practitioner certainly can give a best estimate, but a much better answer would be in the form of a short discussion. For example:
If all I have is my 1st Line Gear, my small tool pouch in my pocket, it can take me anywhere from 3 seconds on a good day, to a little over 10 minutes on a really bad day.
If I have my 2nd Line Gear on me, my large bag of entry tools, it’s more like a 90% chance of having that lock opened non-destructively within 3 minutes on a bad day.
If there are other similar locks at nearby entry points that would also provide us entry if we opened them instead, we are looking more like a 99% chance that I’m opening up something non-destructively within one to two minutes.
Additionally, what are our options if this goes long, over 10 minutes?
And, if I determine that destructive entry is more reasonable, what mission parameters would guide that decision to switch to destructive?
Not only can variables change an NDE operator’s estimate for their timeline window, but there are also known and unknown variables like knowing which tools you’ll have on scene, but not knowing whether the lock has damage or rust on the inside of it. And there are also timeline estimates that can change when an operator’s distance to the target changes. A photo of a lock from a handheld camera-phone, at a great distance from the lock might tell the NDE operator a general idea, but upon walking up to the lock, in-person, it might be discovered that the lock is actually an entirely different make and model than what was expected from the grainy photograph.
And finally, one of the biggest impacts that can change an operator’s timeline window estimates over time is whether or not they are practicing their craft in order to remain current, and what the quality of that ongoing training is.
Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action
Since at least as early as 1995, the Close Quarters Combat (CQC) principles of Surprise, Speed, and Controlled Violent Action, have been upheld as proven principles that should be considered during the entry into structures, as well as the CQC efforts inside (Department of the Army 1995). Some operators have altered the exact terms and sequence, as these are often referenced by some modern operators as “Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action.” All three of these principles exist on a spectrum and all are subjective depending upon the mission environment.
Surprise is the key to a successful assault at close quarters. The fire team or squad clearing the room must achieve surprise, if only for seconds, by deceiving, distracting, or startling the enemy. Sometimes stun or flash grenades may be used to achieve surprise. These are more effective against a nonalert, poorly trained enemy than against alert, well-trained soldiers.
Speed provides a measure of security to the clearing unit. Speed lets soldiers use the first few vital seconds provided by surprise to their maximum advantage. In close quarters combat, speed does not mean incautious haste. It can best be described as “carefull [sic] hurry.” Controlled violent action eliminates or neutralizes the enemy while giving him the least chance of inflicting friendly casualties.
Controlled violent action is not limited to the application of firepower only. It also involves a soldier mind-set of complete domination. (Department of the Army 1995, K-2)
Non-Destructive Entry (NDE) techniques, when utilized properly by experienced tactical practitioners familiar with NDE nuances like proper timeline windows and other field-application concepts, can be used to support and increase all three of the CQC principles of speed, surprise, and violence of action.
In their technical textbook, Tactical Explosive Breaching Operations, O'Connor and Stark (2014) discuss the use of covert entry tools within tactical operations.
Most tactical teams practice stealth movement tactics, but do not possess the ability to breach an objective silently. There are many types of tools and techniques to bypass, defeat or pick locks and barriers. Practice is required in order to be able to identify the type of door, window or lock in order to employ the proper tool and technique.
These techniques maintain the tactical team in a tactical advantage because the suspects usually are not aware of the presence of the team.
At any moment during the team’s silent approach to the suspects’ location, the team has the option to revert to dynamic actions. (O’Connor and Stark 2014, 262).
This excerpt, as well as in-person conversations with Mr. O’Connor, highlights that the tactical community at large is operating with a known gap when it comes to Non-Destructive Entry (NDE) methods, methods that go by many other names: Covert Methods of Entry (CMOE), Tactical Lock Picking (TLP), Silent Entry, Surreptitious Entry, Covert Entry, and more. It also highlights another huge operational advantage of quiet NDE methods, where teams can remain covert by utilizing NDE, and at any moment they may pivot and switch to destructive methods immediately. The reverse cannot be stated. Once the loud/dynamic cat is out of the bag, it stays out.
For tactical surprise, there is a field-application concept in UTAC’s Tactical Lock Picking certification course that is titled “One Door Closer.” Especially for tactical teams that are making entry into larger structures that have multiple rooms, if most tactical teams are consistently utilizing destructive breaching methods at their primary breach point, at the perimeter of larger structures, they instantly lose their element of surprise. The larger the structure, and the farther away from the primary breach point the suspect is, the more time the suspect has to plan, prepare, and to become inoculated to the stress of recognizing the primary breach of the structure that they are in. If the primary breach point, the perimeter door, is silently opened via NDE methods, and the team is able to move at least one door closer to the suspect (locked in another room) before switching to destructive breaching, then they have held their element of surprise longer, gained more intelligence, take up positions that are more strategic, and more.
As for speed, it is true that an operator initiating an explosive charge that has been placed on a door will always be faster than every single NDE method. However, those results change drastically if you start the timer:
Before explosive authorization is granted
Before the explosive breaching certified operator assesses the door and makes their calculations for an appropriately sized charge
And before the charge is constructed and ready for deployment.
If the timer is started at the moment that the operators first assess the door, a properly trained NDE operator might be able to gain entry within seconds, with an extremely high likelihood of success for something like an obviously wide door gap with only a simple latch, clearly visible, while an explosive breacher would still have their own data to process before gaining command approval and before constructing their charge.
When it comes to CQC, there are stories that people play in their head that are based upon Hollywood movie scenes and perfectly constructed state-of-the-art shoothouses. Then there is the real-world of breaching operations and CQC, which happens on long drawn out operations, or when someone on the team forgot a tool, or when the team is several buildings into a large facility search and they are not authorized to use explosives, or in a tiny single-wide trailer where the front door latch can be slipped with a pocket knife faster than the person at the back of the stack can get to the front of the stack with the battering ram.
Both parts of the equation, destructive breaching and non-destructive breaching, should work together in the best way that they can in order to support the mission.
Conclusion
In the second edition of Locks, Safes, and Security: an International Police Reference, Tobias states, “From over thirty-five years of experience, I can attest that there is only one means to become skilled at the art: pick many locks of all kinds and in every possible situation. The only way to know how to recognize and exploit defects within a lock is to practice. This means practicing many times on the same lock as well as practicing on many different locks…It is gained through practice, coupled with mechanical sensitivity, physical dexterity, visual concentration, and the ability to think analytically” (Tobias 2000, 547). It is not always clear to amateur NDE practitioners, but it is clear to the professionals, picking one lock one time does not equal competence.
1 lock opened 1 time - does not equal competence.
1 lock opened 10 times - does not equal competence.
10 locks opened 1 time each - does not equal competence.
10 locks opened 10 times each - does not equal competence.
To acquire competence involves a long active history of practicing and it includes the gaining of masses of data, enough data that deep nuances for pattern recognition can start to be felt in your hands, and enough experience that you are able to leverage that experience in order to start making smart decisions during operations.
Since luck does play a role, both in training and in operations, it is important to understand that the overall capability level of an NDE operator is not limited to their rate of success or their speed of success for their recent lock openings. The mark of a highly-capable NDE practitioner is someone who leverages their NDE knowledge and NDE capabilities in any way which provides a positive impact upon operations.
Yes, a positive impact could include a history of mostly successful attempts that were mostly fast in nature. But, it could also include data where the operator (correctly) states that specific targeted locks are outside of their skill level and should be destructively breached, and a positive impact can also include events where the NDE practitioner is frequently finding hidden keys nearby locked obstacles. Both are a win in the operational NDE practitioner’s record.
References
Department of the Army. 1995. An Infantryman’s Guide to Combat in Built-Up Areas. Field Manual 90-10-1, Change 1. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10-1/appk.pdf.
O'Connor, Charles J., and Edward Stark. 2014. Tactical Explosive Breaching Operations: Reference Textbook. Rev. 13 (October). Publisher unknown.
Ollam, Deviant. 2012. Practical Lock Picking: A Physical Penetration Tester’s Training Guide. 2nd ed. Syngress.
Tobias, Marc Weber. 2000. Locks, Safes, and Security: An International Police Reference. 2nd ed. Charles C Thomas.
Weyers, Jos, Matt Burrough, Walter Belgers, BandEAtoZ, and Nigel K. Tolley. 2024. Locksport: A Hacker’s Guide to Lockpicking, Impressioning, and Safe Cracking. No Starch Press.
Conflict of Interest Discclosure
The author owns Uncensored Tactical LLC, which provides training and certification courses in operational non-destructive entry (NDE), and operates UTAC Publishing, which has published several books on related subjects. UTAC’s course curriculum is referenced in this paper because of its direct relevance to NDE within an operational framework. The author may benefit financially from the sale of these courses, certifications, and publications. Readers should consider these financial and professional interests when evaluating the author’s discussion and characterization of the curriculum.
A.I. Disclosure
OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-5.6 Sol) was limited to assisting with the initial organization of the author’s original concepts into an appropriate research-style outline and for assisting with researching source data for proper citations and reference documentation. AI was not used for generative information, writing, editing, or in any other way.
All substantive content, analysis, conclusions, and written language are the author’s own.
About the Author
Pat Watson is an author, instructor, and subject-matter expert specializing in operational non-destructive entry, Tactical Lock Picking, and lock forensics. He is the owner and lead instructor of Uncensored Tactical (UTAC), where he develops and teaches advanced operational lock-picking and specialized entry curricula to U.S. and allied special operations forces, law-enforcement tactical units, and other government operators. Watson is the author of multiple technical works addressing lock picking and related entry methods, rapid safe openings, key generation, and operational lock forensics.
His professional background includes more than a decade of U.S. Coast Guard service, including service with Tactical Law Enforcement Team South conducting international counter-narcotics operations and participation in counter-piracy operations with Combined Task Force 151 off the coast of Somalia. He subsequently served for multiple years as a local law-enforcement officer in Florida, where his duties included applying unconventional-entry skills in operational settings. His instruction, research, and writing focus on translating specialized entry knowledge into practical frameworks for tactical operators and investigators, with particular emphasis on operational decision-making and the recognition, documentation, and interpretation of covert methods of entry.
Publication Metadata
Author: Pat Watson
Affiliation: Uncensored Tactical LLC, Texas, USA
Article Type: Technical White Paper - Not Peer Reviewed
UTAC NDE White Paper Number: UTAC2026-003
Link to download a pdf of this paper:
Publication Date: October 13th, 2026
Version: V1
Last Edited On: N/A
Suggested Citation: Watson, Pat. 2026. “Determining Lock Picking Timelines for Operational Decision Making.” UTAC2026-003. Tactical Lock Picking. October 13, 2026. https://www.tacticallockpicking.io/nde-white-paper/utac2026-003.
Keywords: Non-Destructive Entry (NDE); Tactical Lock Picking (TLP); Timeline Windows; Special Operations Forces (SOF); Tactical Breaching; Operational Decision-Making; Lock Picking; Entry Time Estimation; Covert Methods of Entry (CMOE).
