Oversized LCIs Suck Sour Lemons


PDA






Black Butte
April 2, 2013, 08:33 PM
I'm disappointed in Ruger. Two guns I was excited about are the Mark III Hunter .22 LR and the LCP .380 AUTO. Then I noticed Ruger made a change from the Mark II by inserting the BIG, gaudy loaded-chamber indicator (LCI) in the Mark III. Well at least the LCP is available without the LCI, right? Not any more! The new variant of the LCP is now sportin' the over-sized California-ish LCI.

I guess I'm stuck getting a Buck Mark and a Kel Tec. Like Smith & Wesson revolvers (because of their integrated lock), it seems Ruger pistols will now be a used-condition-only purchase for me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oversized LCIs Suck Sour Lemons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M2 Carbine
April 3, 2013, 12:25 AM
I impulse bought two LCP, three LC9, two SR9c and a SR40 and a MKIII.

All are good guns except the MK III, which has given me trouble since day one, because of all the lawyer crap on it. I remove all of it but the gun still malfunctions too much.
I have two MK I and a MK II 22/45, which I've had for many trouble free years, so I know my MK III is crap.


When I bought the LC9 I did not like the lawyer crap on it but I thought I'd give it a try.
I shot over a thousand trouble free rounds in eight days (2,000 now).

I actually got to like the ugly LCI on the LC9 and SR models but the "magazine safety" had to go on all the guns. I hate those things.


Sorry to hear Ruger is lawyering up the LCP.

Inebriated
April 3, 2013, 01:02 AM
Glock's LCI is the only one I've had that hasn't bothered me.

My MKIII's isn't in the way, but it just looks ugly.

481
April 3, 2013, 01:22 AM
I agree with you guys on this. The Ruger MK III is a sorry development for what was an unbelievably sleek and reliable design in the MK I and MK II pistols. Fortunately, I acquired two of them (a brand new stainless MK II 6 7/8 Gov't with bull barrel and a brand new stainless 10" bull barrel MK II) prior to the discontinuation of the MK II and MK I series.

If the MK III had been produced w/o the dreadful LCI it would've been wonderful, but alas, Ruger elected to pollute the design forever ruining a classic pistol. What a shame.

bannockburn
April 3, 2013, 01:36 AM
I'm not thrilled with the LCI on my SR9c but after awhile I just got use to it being there and really don't notice it all that much anymore.

highorder
April 3, 2013, 11:28 AM
Buy a replacement from Ruger, put it in a drawer, and grind down the one installed on your gun.

Drail
April 3, 2013, 11:43 AM
Trade it for a MK II. I have worked on MK IIIs for friends and you couldn't give me one. Our insurance and legal industries are taking over our country.

mdauben
April 3, 2013, 12:30 PM
Buy a replacement from Ruger, put it in a drawer, and grind down the one installed on your gun.

Or you could just buy a LCI "plug" from one of the several sources which sell them. Its a simple swap with the factory LCI.

Girodin
April 3, 2013, 06:03 PM
I greatly prefer something unobtrusive. Something like the Steyr M series has doesn't bother me a bit. The pop up Ruger LC9 one is not what I would call unobtrusive. Neither are the Ruger safety warnings all over their guns.

RBid
April 3, 2013, 08:15 PM
The LC9 and SR LCIs and lawyer markings aren't obtrusive. You can't see them while you're shooting. They are completely out of the way. They aren't pretty, but they don't effect function at all.

This is basically like griping about a holster because it doesn't come in a pretty purple. It's aesthetic.

sappyg
April 3, 2013, 10:49 PM
Took the LCI gizmo out of my MK III 22/45 and I can't remember the last FTF or FTE after a little over 5k rounds through it. Took out the spring and metal piece but left the floppy plastic thing in the receiver.

The other MK III still has the Factory LCI in place and has a FTE about 1% of the time. Not completely convinced it's the LCI or the extractor yet but I'm leaning towards the extractor even though it only has ~2500 down range.

They both shoot the same ammo.

I don't think most people even notice them honestly.

A friend just bought a Buckmark. Very nice! No LCI. No mag disconnect. Sweet trigger and shoots like a laser. Very well done. You have some very good options.

JR24
April 4, 2013, 12:21 AM
Truth be told if my LCI is up I'm either holstering/unholstering or pointing down range. They don't much bother me.

Girodin
April 4, 2013, 12:56 AM
The LC9 and SR LCIs and lawyer markings aren't obtrusive. You can't see them while you're shooting. They are completely out of the way. They aren't pretty, but they don't effect function at all.

I suppose that depends exactly what one means by obtrusive. While some of my guns are tools and some are owned for other reasons, I prefer non of them to be cluttered up with crap they don't need. I don't even like huge billboard-esque markings of the manufacture's name or model name. For the tools I'll pick function over looks every time. My carry gun is not what most would call pretty. If the LC9, or other such gun, was some how the most functional best defensive gun on the market I certainly would still own it. That said its not, and being cluttered up with crap it doesn't need does nothing to get me to like it for any other reason.

RBid
April 4, 2013, 03:02 AM
I get it if you don't like those. Cosmetic reasons are valid, given how many great products there are on the market. I'm just saying that they have no bearing on function.

I use an SR9c for my light clothing carry, and I never think about those things, unless I see one of these threads on a message board.

paravil
April 4, 2013, 10:38 AM
Took the LCI gizmo out of my MK III 22/45 and I can't remember the last FTF or FTE after a little over 5k rounds through it. Took out the spring and metal piece but left the floppy plastic thing in the receiver.

Same here. I have a MKIII 22/45, and removing the LCI was very easy to do. I know that they generally function properly, but putting an obstruction between the round and the chamber seems like a bad idea and an accident waiting to happen. Plus it just collected a lot of crud and the chamber stays cleaner without it.

I recently came close to buying an SR9, but the huge LCI was a major detractor for me, aesthetically and functionally. I went with a P95 instead, which has none of the extra safety bells and whistles and has been flawless and accurate. To me, the continued production and popularity of the P95 as is proves that all the added crap on the SR series is completely arbitrary.

ku4hx
April 4, 2013, 10:47 AM
I guess we've just been lucky. Ruger Mark III Target, SR9, SR9c and SR40 all with the much hated loaded chamber indicator. For us it's kind of a "meh" ... none has caused a problem with at least 300 rounds fired from each gun. Of course I clean all guns after firing so that may be a factor.

But if they ever did becomes a problem, a roll pin punch and a grinding wheel affords a permanent fix. Galloway Precision carries a "dummy" version of the part for about $15 or so. They're all the rave on the Ruger forums.

hentown
April 4, 2013, 12:49 PM
What would be wrong with just removing the LCI in the Mark III? I don't believe the open space would cause any problems. You could also just remove the spring and shiny metal piece and leave the LCI in, but not functioning.

InkEd
April 6, 2013, 12:20 PM
I don't mind the LCI on my MKIII but the magazine disconnect is uncool. The feature I really dislike is that you cannot slingshot the bolt without modifying the pistol.

weblance
April 7, 2013, 12:37 AM
I'm disappointed in Ruger. Two guns I was excited about are the Mark III Hunter .22 LR and the LCP .380 AUTO. Then I noticed Ruger made a change from the Mark II by inserting the BIG, gaudy loaded-chamber indicator (LCI) in the Mark III. Well at least the LCP is available without the LCI, right? Not any more! The new variant of the LCP is now sportin' the over-sized California-ish LCI.

Where? Can you show us a picture? No one else has made this comment. They have all made comments about the improved sights, and better, shorter trigger pull. Are you confusing the LC380 with the LCP?

Pilot
April 7, 2013, 08:18 AM
Many replace the LCI with a plug like others have said on the MK III. Also, removal of the mag disconnect is not difficult either with installation of a MK II style bushing. The only other thing is the internal lock, but I don't believe that has been causing any issues. I would do the above mods if I ever had to buy a MK III, but I doubt I ever will.

hentown
April 7, 2013, 09:39 AM
I don't mind the LCI on my MKIII but the magazine disconnect is uncool. The feature I really dislike is that you cannot slingshot the bolt without modifying the pistol.
__________________

The simple removal of the bolt stop detent and spring takes about five seconds, after the bolt stop is removed from the pistol. That's not really "modifying" the pistol; it's just removing a part that can later be replaced, if you don't like having the option of either using the bolt stop or slingshotting.

TarDevil
April 7, 2013, 10:12 AM
If I were unfortunate enough to live in California, I'd be quite grateful that some of these excellent guns we're available to me.

The LCI on my SR9c doesn't bother me in any way. Completely out of sight when shooting, and I don't feel my "gun expertise" is being insulted with a loaded chamber reminder.

Functionality? The SR9 has a stellar reputation for reliability and I've literally spent hours trying unsuccessfully to find one incident where the LCI caused a problem.

If the LCI's give you heartburn, it's a free country (for now). But mine does not insult my intelligence or prevent the gun from going bang... plus my fellow gun enthusiast in more restrictive states get to enjoy a superb firearm.

Pilot
April 8, 2013, 09:04 AM
There has been examples of problems with the LCI affecting function on the Ruger MK III's, but I haven't heard it affecting the SR9 or LC9. I did have a friend's SR9 jam on me at a range session, but I can't blame the LCI. I just don't like that big LCI billboard sticking up, and find it distracting when shooting the guns. California can keep them all. Bending to ridiculous "restrictive" state rules, and silly lawyer driven requirements, and forcing all to buy guns so configured is poor business practice. Ruger should have made individual runs for these states, and not forced the MK III on everyone. When I see a used MK II, I usually buy it.

TarDevil
April 8, 2013, 09:43 AM
Pilot, truly not wanting to be oppositional with you, honestly just curious...how can the LCI be a distraction when shooting when it isn't even visible while shooting?

hentown
April 9, 2013, 12:48 PM
I just this morning removed the LCI from my Mark III 22/45. I'm going to leave the space as-is, with nothing in it, until I see that there's a disadvantage to leaving the space open.

Jim NE
April 9, 2013, 05:13 PM
What do most people do with the tachometer or ammeter on their dash board? Ignore it mostly, if it's not causing a malfunction. Are LCI's causing that many malfunctions?

Couldn't tell you offhand how many of my pistols have LCI's, cause they're pretty easy to ignore, for me, unless I intentionally look for them (I'm usually looking at the sights and the targets). And never cause a problem. I certainly wouldn't limit my options of guns to those w/o LCI's.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oversized LCIs Suck Sour Lemons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!