Art Todesco says...
I'm the OP on this. Here's the current setup on this key
> With the OP's key switch, one could simply pry out the
> lock and short (notice I said short) the wires together
> in order to gain access.
Yes. I guess I assumed (hoped) that the swtich was designed
such that if it was removed, the wires would break away in
some fashion that would leave them inaccessible from the
front. At least, that's what I would have done. But of
course I won't know until I remove it.
> I use a wireless keypad. It runs on a 9v battery and,
> as I have 2 doors, can be programmed for both doors
> (different codes). It uses rolling codes, which makes
> it more secure. The battery, so far, has lasted over 7
> years and still works fine.
So there must be a part B that's the receiver. This is a
Sears opener from 1972, and the mechanical box still works
fine, but the original transmitters and receiver died long
ago, and instead I use this set:
I see that there is also a 318K available, a keypad which
appears to use the same receiver. If so, that would be
pretty straightforward. However, not having seen the 318K,
it's not clear how secure it is. Does it simply transmit
whatever you enter to the receiver, or do you set a specific
code in the keypad? I know that both the T and R of the
current setup have to have the dipswitches set the same way.
Well, I'll need to look into that. It seems a lot of things
that should be secure really aren't, starting with padlocks.
But I guess the basic question is whether I'd rather use a
key or a keypad. It's basically for times when I need to
give someone who doesn't have a clicker access to the house
when I'm not there. And if secure, it seems the keypad is
more convenient, and if it's done correctly, more secure. I
assume all current construction uses keypads.