I just picked up a plain Jane P320C that has no Loaded Chamber Indicator. I am wanting to get a threaded barrel. Everything I am finding that is threaded in 13.5x1LH for the Compact models has the Loaded Chamber Indicator cut out.
Is it really that big of a deal to run a LCI barrel on a non LCI gun?

No, I do not want a 1/2x28 barrel as all my other Sigs are threaded 13.5x1LH so I do not want to go changing that.

I am not certain I understand what you’re describing or asking about, but if it’s Can barrels with the slot cut in the barrel hood extension so we can see a loaded round be used in slides that don’t have the pop-up indicator, then yes, they can. My agency has a bunch of guns whose barrels have the slot, but do not have the pop-up indicator, and I have some personal ones as well.

I like to think of the slot in the barrel as a loaded chamber revealer because it doesn’t “indicate” anything. By itself, though, it serves that purpose just fine.

It will run fine, only issue is on an optic gun, it can cloud the optic quicker than one with out the cutout.



TXPO

I run my full size 320 non LCI barrel in my LCI slide. No issues maybe a bit of extra dirty to clean off.

When I added my RDS I took the LCI out since I used my old barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Texaspoff:
It will run fine, only issue is on an optic gun, it can cloud the optic quicker than one with out the cutout.

TXPO

This. It will function, but will soot up the front of your optic if you have one mounted. The LCI is a stupid feature that addresses a non-existent problem (you can see the brass in the chamber through the side of the ejection port just fine, if you feel the need to look).

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
will soot up the front of your optic if you have one mounted.

Ah: The things we learn in unrelated discussions that don’t get mentioned for some reasons in threads about optical sights on handguns. Good to know.

Don’t plan on putting an optic on this gun.

Any other issues?

None that I'm aware of.

The LCI was invented to stop the fumble fingering with press checking that contributes to negligent discharges. It also stops the metallic noises associated with the technique that signal the gun is out of battery ie you are now disarmed.

I've read that LCI's are prone to throwing more gas residue back onto an RMR but throughout extraction, until the case is fully withdrawn, that doesn't happen much. The case is in the way.

Another issue is shooting cheap ammo - there's more powder residue and less flash suppressant in those blends which add to the problem.

The manufacturers didn't just come up with something to charge us more money - in fact there's very little difference in barrel prices over it, considering the math and machining it takes to do it right. There was a need to see the weapon was loaded without any manipulation - just look straight down without sweeping the muzzle to one side, and done.

It's required in some states for complience. MA being one.

I have two barrels with LCI and two without, 3 of the 4 guns have optics. The gun I shoot the most has an LCI w/ optic and it’s not the end of the world. I plan on running this gun in classes so the trade off of a visual chamber check is having to pack some Zeiss lens cleaners as part of my nightly cleaning routine was not a big deal. I there is no plan for an optic, it really doesn’t matter.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
It's required in some states for complience. MA being one.

This is the real reason that it exists, and why they call it the "Masshole" (I actually first heard that term from a Sig employee, and it made me laugh). I believe the military wanted it on their guns as well, hence it's inclusion on the M17/M18, but it wouldn't have made it to the civilian models if it wasn't for meddling politicians. The LCI is an example of politics forcing design changes to a product that are detrimental to overall function. Not hugely detrimental, mind you, but given the choice I'll always take a gun without that cut.

The hole is not the same as the pop up LCI in terms of both parts count and simplicity. I can say that on an M17 running without the popup LCI will cover an optic with sh** in relatively short order. I put mine back for that reason.

It seems the only standard 9mm barrels you can get from SIG for the P320 have the LCI cut. Except the TiN coated barrels don't have it. Is it just them trying to be cost effective by standardizing on that one requirement for Massachusetts? Is it a permanent thing or just a supply issue? I guess only in 9mm because that's all they are making right now.

I will agree that if the military required it, then finding a 320 barrel without will be a hassle. Kinda like finding an AR upper without the Forward Assist. They charge more for less.

If an RMR is getting GSR on the front lens then it goes to how a deflector could be arranged on the leading edge of the mount?

There is also the application of a lens coating. I've been experimenting with "ceramic" car wax on the cell phone to diminish all the fingering, and a product out for hikers called Cat Crap on spectacles has a good reputation. The idea is to make the lens less surface sticky so the residue doesn't adhere.

I don't see the LCI going away.

If I understand the discussion correctly, it’s about some of the P320 barrels that have the hole/slot in the barrel hood extension that I gather is blamed for sooting up optical sights. That hole which is useful for checking to ensure a round is chambered* isn’t, however, limited to P320s. It has been a feature of even a few SIG Classic line pistols going back many years. The S&W M&P I owned at one time had it, and based on a quick search, it seems it’s a fairly common feature of other brands as well. Is there some reason why it’s suddenly becoming a complaint about the P320? Do the holes not contribute to the same problem with other pistols?

* I do of course know that there are other chamber check methods, but none I’m aware of is as simple and effective as that one.

I've not had too big an issue finding guns without it. In fact, when we placed our order for our new RX Pros a couple of months ago, I specifically asked about it and they assured me that they would not have the LCI cut. Now to be fair, it's been 2 months and I still haven't seen any guns, so who knows what we'll actually get, or when we'll get them. My instructor class is at the end of next month, and I'm starting to think I'm going to get stuck using a loaner gun for it because Sig is incapable of delivering product. It took us 6 months to get our rifles last year.

Just to demonstrate why I think the LCI is unnecessary, here are some photos of a P320.

Loaded Gun..round clearly visible through the side of the ejection port:

[/url]

Unloaded gun...no round visible:



Now, if I'm clearing the gun to ensure its empty, I'm still going to drop the mag and lock the slide open and visually and physically inspect the chamber, whether the gun is LCI equipped or not. But if I'm just checking to see if it's loaded, a quick glance through the side of the ejection port is all that's needed, as I can clearly see the round through the gap. I do it every night when I take the gun out of the safe before I go to work, just to be sure. No unnecessary press-check manipulation, no concerns about bullet setback from repeated chambering, and no stupid LCI cut to throw soot out the top of the gun when I'm shooting, either.

The side view usually works pretty well, but I am still curious why the top slot annoys P320 owners, and yet we don’t hear it being discussed about all the other guns that have something similar. Reasons?

The slot may of course satisfy legal requirements that the other method doesn’t, so that’s hardly a factor a manufacturer is likely to ignore.

In any event, now I realize that I have something else to be concerned about. One of my P320s has a bare stainless steel slide and I’d never thought to look for soot on the top that could have been deposited through the barrel hood slot. So, I checked just now and to my (initial) enormous relief, there wasn’t a speck to be seen despite the fact that I seldom clean that area.
But now I’m wondering why.

quote:

The side view usually works pretty well, but I am still curious why the top slot annoys P320 owners, and yet we don’t hear it being discussed about all the other guns that have something similar. Reasons?

Not sure. I don't own any guns with them, as I've intentionally avoided them after hearing multiple complaints about them fouling the front glass on optics, and receiving confirmation from two different Sig reps that it happens. Add to that my principled distaste for design changes that serve no practical purpose other than to satisfy a nanny-state legal requirement.

It could just be the position of the cut in relation to the front of the optic as it sits on the 320 slide, or something about the design of the P320 chamber. I'm not that familiar with offerings from other manufacturers...what other guns are out there that have a similar open cut in the top of the barrel hood? If we can identify some, it would be interesting to look at some pictures of them with optics mounted and compare their positioning to those on the P320. It's also possible those guns have a similar issue and I'm just unaware of it, as I don't really get into plastic much outside of the P320/P365 lines.

Searching for the witness hole loaded chamber revealer is difficult, but at least four I found:

Springfield Armory
https://www.recoilweb.com/revi...mm-mod-2-169164.html

Smith & Wesson
https://gunblast.com/SW-Shield.htm

FN
https://www.gunsandammo.com/ed...fn-503-review/375974

Taurus
https://gundigest.com/gun-revi...new-king-of-the-hill