My DA/SA Traditional: Ruger P89

[JonInWA]

The recent threads that we've had in the last month, and a couple in the past year regarding the current state of manufacturer's reliability/durability have definitely piqued my interest. Wile currently I'm pretty firmly invested in Gen 3 Glocks, a review of my logbook over the years shows that at various points I've owned many DA/SA (or TDA-whatever you want to call 'em) handguns- a significant portion of the SIG-Sauer Classic catalog (multiple P220s, a P225, multiple P229s, a P228, a Sigpro 2340; multiple Walter P5s (both early and late production variants), a P5C, multiple P.38/P1s, a late production P88; multiple CZ 75s and multiple CZ 83s; a Beretta 92D, 92D Centurion, a Beretta 92 Compact L Type M, a Beretta 8357 Cougar; a Ruger P85, P944, and multiple P89s...

Out of this eclectic melange, the only ones that have stood the test of time and interest for me have been my Beretta 92D (which I've discussed previously in some depth on the forum here)-and a late production (2007) Ruger P89. A P89?? Yep-and there are some cogent reasons why.

First, the development of the P85/P89 was an exceptionally personal quest for William Ruger. His goal was dual-both to create a state-of-the art "wondernine" 9mm personal defensive pistol for both general and duty use, to provide it at a commercially viable (read "acceptably profitable") pricepoint that would be lower than virtually any competitor on the market, and to achieve selection as the DoD multi-service issue handgun (what became the XM9 and XM10 trials of the mid-to late-1980s). The state-of-the-art aspect was assured by the experience and skill of the Ruger project engineering team (who were reportedly given a "clean sheet of paper" start point and commensurate budget/company developmental resources) and William Ruger's very personal attention and involvement; the price-point was achievable due to Ruger's experience in investment casting materials and technology, and the creation of a new production facility in Prescott, AZ designed to exploit the technology and manufacturing scales required. While the P85's development was insufficient for the XM9 trials (which in many ways was unfortunate), it was quite ready for the XM10 trial. The guns submitted for the XM10 trials were the "mature P85" (revised firing pin safety, revised flatter/shorter slide stop/release lever, revised barrel/slide fit, revised sear, triggerbar, pins, and thicker barrel link, one piece cast barrel, revised rear sight (in terms of height and provision of a grubscrew for securing after drifting), and slightly revised grips (slightly dished-in). his gun did not achieve DoD selection, as realistically the XM10 trial was Beretta's to lose (which of course they didn't), but the Ruger submission passed with flying colors according to information passed to me by an industry participant.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2659.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2659.jpg.html)

The P85 (once it moved from the initial 2-piece barrels to the 1-piece ones, and with phase one of the barrel-to slide modifications) was a decent combat handgun. Reliability was excellent, durability was forecast at at least the 20K round level (in consonance with DoD contract stipulations) and accuracy was acceptable, if not exceptional (around the 3"-4" point at 25 yards). As 2nd Armored Division staff officer and subsequently as a Group XO I chose a 1990 production P85 as my personal defensive weapon, liking the Ruger's toughness. I don't recall that weapon ever malfunctioning, but when I took an early retirement as a Major and subsequently went through law school, it was sold. The only modification that I dit to it was to replace the Xenoy grooved resin grips with a set of Uncle Mikes Craig Spegel-designed checkered Santoprene ones, which I felt provided a better grip, especially in adverse weather conditions.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN0978.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN0978.jpg.html)

In 2007, nostalgia hit, and I decided to obtain a current production P89 as close to the configuration of my original P85. My local gunstore was a bit surprised that Ruger still produced the P89, but was easily able to obtain one for me in September of 2007. That date is significant, because unbeknownst to me, Ruger, after William Ruger's death, was being led by Steven Sanetti and Michael Fifer, who by the 3rd quarter of 2007 had introduced and executed a thorough analysis and on-going revamping of Ruger's design. manufacturing, quality control, and marketing processes-of which my particular P89 was a very fortuitous beneficiary of. Shortly after mine was produced in August of 2007, Ruger removed the venerable P89 as a catalog item, although subsequent Ruger records indicate that it was actually produced for several succeeding years, presumably as for special order LEO/military contract lot(s)(Large known organizational adopters of the P85/P89 included the Israeli Air Force, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Wisconsin Highway Patrol, and the San Diego Police Department).

My P89 was the base entry, blued, manual safety DA/SA variant. I again switched out the OEM Xenoy resin grips for a set of new Uncle Mikes (at that point discontinued, but easily available), and the flush mainspring cap at the pistol's butt was replaced with one with an incorporated lanyard loop. Another nice surprise was that Ruger had subtly re-engineered both the magazines and magazine latch point; the new magazines were stainless steel with a thicker polymer baseplate, and slightly taller, minimizing the transition from magazine to barrel feed ramp. When I went to the range to conduct my initial break-in and sight zeroing, I found that the gun was an absolute tack-driver, literally routinely achieving 1" to 1.5" groups-with a very decent (albeit long travelling) DA triggerpull, and a very crisp SA pull, with a short and discernible reset point. I subsequently replaced the Uncle Mikes grips with a set of Hogue rubber cobbblestone fingergroove grips, when I found that one of the Uncle Mikes grips was experiencing retaining tab shrinkage or deterioration, inducing grip slippage in the frame.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2051.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2051.jpg.html)

While primarily carrying and competing with my Glocks and 1911s, I used the P89 in multiple IDPA matches, where it acquitted itself extremely well-to the point where in short order I ordered a Blade-Tech IWB (in olive drab, to continue with my Army use commemoration theme). While not a truly significant test, in one match there was driving rain throughout the match, and ejected magazines were thoroughly exposed to puddles and mud-the gun performed flawlessly. In a recent match earlier this month, my shooting friend and IDPA club president who obseerved its performance throughout the match came up to me and quietly stated that he thought that I was performing better with the P89 than any of my other guns that I've been concentrating on (Glock, Beretta, and 1911), which gave me pause for thought.

What I've got is an exceptionally accurate, reliable, and durable DA/SA pistol. The OEM sights are quite good,and enhanced by painting the front sight dot with fluorescent green and the rear sight dots with fluorescent orange. I experimented with the OEM Xenoy grips after the Uncle Mikes failed, but found that I preferred and performed significantly better with the Hogue grips, which maximized grip and hand position, particularly in the frontstrap/triggerguard and rear tang/backstrap areas. Its a pistol that successfully negotiated the grueling XM10 DoD trials of the 1980s, and has had a quiet history of successful organizational use. Additionally, Ruger had quietly continued to provide significant quality improvement modifications to the gun over it's production lifespan, notably in a "phase two" further barrel-to-slide fit modification (resulting in the rear of the barrel breachblock protruding above the plane of the slide), and revising the profile of the safety levers, both re-positioning the lever shelves and making them significantly larger(and far more ergonomic). As the gun is designed for "all-spec" military production 9mm ammunition, the triggerpulls, while heavy, are very smooth (the DA pull is particularly revolver-like); I've found it to be capable of detonating some very thick-primered Israeli issue ammunition (possibly intended for open-bolt submachine gun use).

So-Why isn't the gun more highly regarded today? One reason was due to it's initial reputation for mediocre accuracy and ergonomics, both of which were quietly dealt with by Ruger. Another reason is possibly due to Ruger's marketing, and/or the shooting community's perception of the P85/P89 as a sort of a low-price-point volkspistol aimed at price-point contracts and lower-budget buyers (kind of a "bubba" gun...) In my opinion, the gun is much better than this perception-and, at least in my sample size of my late-production example, a very efficacious pistol, one capable of competing with more modern and much higher priced contemporaries. While I don't see it replacing, or significantly displacing my Glocks in the overall long-run scheme of things, I am viewing it in a very favorable light, both for carry and competition; I'm actually carrying it as I write this, I've used it in one club-level IDPA match so far this year, and plan on using it in at least one upcoming one, and it's on my short list for consideration in this year's Washington State IDPA sanctioned championship match this summer.

While my preferred holster is the previously mentioned Blade-Tech IWB, I also have, and have been pleased with a Tactical Tailor OWB general purpose holster, Bianchi's ubiquitous M12/UM84 modular military flap holster (currently employed on a Tactical Tailor shoulder harness set-up for field use), an Eagle Industries Special Ops tanker-style shoulder holster, and a Wilderness Zip Slide.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2068.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN2068.jpg.html)

Best, Jon

[TR675]

Maybe it's coming of age in the '90's in Texas and going to Academy a lot, where Rugers just dominated the shelves...but I've always had a soft spot for the old school Rugers. All of 'em. Mini's, P-series, you name it. Always wanted one, never got one.

Good write up.

[Lomshek]

Rock solid guns. I have a P94 that is approaching 75K rounds.

[JodyH]

I had a P89 back in the day, I wasn't really shooting a lot back then but that beast was "flawless" when it came to reliability and the accuracy issues I had were all because the nut behind the trigger needed tightening.
:p

[Rich]

When the P85 came out . I headed to the GS and bought one.
Back then I had a thing for USA made handguns Colt ,S&W Ruger .

The Pistol ran great and I don't recall any problems for the time I had it.

The major problem it had . It wouldn't group at all ! I was a crazy I never had a pistol that wouldn't group.

Matter of fact its the only and worst pistol I ever owned ! Accuracy wise !

[SecondsCount]

When the P85 came out . I headed to the GS and bought one.
Back then I had a thing for USA made handguns Colt ,S&W Ruger .

The Pistol ran great and I don't recall any problems for the time I had it.

The major problem it had . It wouldn't group at all ! I was a crazy I never had a pistol that wouldn't group.

Matter of fact its the only and worst pistol I ever owned ! Accuracy wise !
I shot one in the mid 90s and the best I could get was 2-3" at 21 feet. I wasn't the most accurate shooter back then but I could shoot well under 2" with my Taurus PT99 at the same distance.

They do seem to be very sturdy and reliable. Of the many I have seen at the range, only one had a breakage which had something to do with the recoil spring assy. coming apart. Locked the gun up solid.

[jetfire]

I bought a P89 quite literally because of Desperado.

[JAD]

There was a rental P89 at the gun shop and shooting range where I first started shooting. My friends and I would rent it fairly often (because of desperado obviously). We encountered in that pistol our first "link jam". My friends extrapolated this into the idea that all links are always bad and therefore 1911's are bad because they have links. I am turn took that concept and expanded it into the idea that all people who don't like 1911s are idiots. That started me on 1911s. So, interestingly, the shape and character of most of my gun safe is really dictated by the Ruger P 89.

[Rich]

I would of been very happy if it could group 3inch at 7yards. More like 8inches at best

I don't know if I can put it to words? But each group would be different. and placed at a different location on the target.
You never knew what you would get.

I know for sure I wasn't the only owner who had this problem. Ruger did end up fixing it with later versions.

[ST911]

The P-series isn't as robust as many would believe, with a few odd vulnerabilities. These were discussed in detail in their armorer courses and agency support, with varying amounts of candor depending on source. They meet the needs of most folks that bought them, but they remain mostly a value priced, clunky, hobby gun that is best left in that role.

[JonInWA]

A couple of things about Rich's and Skintop911 comments: Rich, you're absolutely correct about the first, and probably to a lesser degree, P85/P89s up to about the 304-serial number sequence regarding accuracy. The very early P85s were the worst regarding accuracy, suffering from a two-piece barrel and a not great barrel-to-slide fit. They were reliable, but not particularly accurate. Allegedly Massad Ayoob sent one of his early models to Irv Stone at Bar Sto, and was so impressed with the results that he contacted William Ruger, instigating a meeting between Ruger's engineers and Stone, presumably resulting in the "phase one" series of modifications tightening up the P85's accuracy (which I believe was the move to the one-piece barrel and an improved barrel-to-slide fit, probably centering around the barrel's relationship with the bushing area). Post 304 serial number P89's had a more drastically improved barrel-to-slide relationship, where the angle of the barrel's fit into the slide was altered to the point of where when the barrel was seated and in battery, the rear portion of the breachblock's top actually protruded above the slide plane. My understanding is that the tightness of the breacghblock's fit into it's niche in the slide is also a fairly crucial component of each individual gun's accuracy; one of the reasons that the subsequent .45 ACP chambered P90 (which was pretty much literally a P85/P89 receiver slightly reconfigured for a .45 ACP single-stack magazine, with a proportionately larger slide) has a justifiable reputation for steller accuracy is that it fortuitiously has from the onset a very tight barrel breachblock-to-slide niche fit.

Interestingly, Ruger actually had an in-house fix for inaccurate P85s, altering the "pinch" fit between barrel to slide, but relatively few of those experiencing inaccuracy with their P85s ever actually sent their P85s back to Ruger to do anything corrective about it-hmmm; a bit like today's 9mm Smith & Wesson M&Ps....but with a less demanding shooting community/aftermarket support industry at the time.

Skintop911, regarding the P-Series AS A WHOLE, I agree with you. Early P85s had a firing pin materials issue, resulting in a totally revised firing pin safety system; I personally had a law enforcement model P90 which had issues chambering/going into battery with hollow point cartridges (230 gr Federal Hydroshoks, if my memory serves me correctly-Ruger CUstomer Service QUICKLY rectified that), the P91 and first series P944s with their swinging links had long term inadequacy issues in durability due to the .40 cartridge's quick and violent pressure spiking (which led first to the early demise of the P91, and subsequently to the re-design of the P944's action, switching from a swinging link to the cam block system)(my personal P944 {a "Series One" swinging link varient} suffered from hammer follow, due to sear issues-Ruger Customer Service again quickly rectified that, replacing the sear); the P97 had some harmonic vibration issues, leading to displacement of the slide stop, inducing operational issues; the P345 was ergonomically more efficient and aesthetically more attractive than the P97 it replaced, but had some design flaws, leading to it's attenuated lifespan and replacement by the SR .45 ACP (which has shown some interesting flaws itself...), and I've never been particularly impressed with either the P95 or the SR series (to me, the SR is a sort of a cobbled-together poor man's copy of a Glock). And so on.

However, all that said, the P89 (especially post 304 serial numbered ones) and the P90s overall have been exceptional guns-grossly overdesigned for the cartridges that their chambered in. The revised ergos of the P89, and the substitution of Hogue grips (which Ruger themselves offered for several of their law enforcement skus, and commercially as an aftermarket option with the Ruger eagle molded in it) significantly aided in the handling of the pistols. The slides certainly ARE heavy, due to their over-design, but the receivers, especially with subsequent OEM factory grip modifications and/or substitutions are actually reasonably slim and easy handling, in my opinion.

I'd certainly be open to and interested in any further illumination/information you can provide based on your expereinces and information garnered from your courses.

Best, Jon

[Clay]

Great write up Jon, thanks. I had a P90 and a P95 that I bought new in 97 that I wish I had kept. I put several thousand rounds through the P95 without a single malfunction. I only ran about 500 rounds through the P90 but it was trouble free and very accurate.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

[cathellsk]

Jon,

I work for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and I'm also a firearms instructor for them. My institution uses P89DAOs. We have a few P95DAOs but never use them anymore. Since working for the BOP I've seen multiple pistols used by them...Beretta INOX 92D Vertecs, Ruger P89s, P93s, P94s, & P95s. All the Rugers were DAO. By far the most used is the P89. It depends on what institution your at what your issued.

In my 10yrs shooting the P89DAO I've formed and heard plenty of opinions on them. Most people hate them, saying they hate the DAO trigger or the ergonomics. Those of us that like them are few but vocal. Main reason is they are tanks. They just keep running with very minimal problems. The worst being the barrel links breaking and locking up the slides. They're a real bitch to break open and get the slide back to disassemble for repair. Every once in awhile a mag release will fall out but apparently you can just pop it back in from what I've seen. They are accurate too. The people that say they aren't obviously don't know how to run the trigger properly (I'm talking BOP employees here). We have about 10 or so shooters including myself that are consistently the top shooters ever year during quals. I found my own P89DAO on auctionarms a few years back that was NIB and use it to improve my skills with the work guns.

Last contract we had were for P95DAOs. But I found out they won't be leaving Glynco because of reliability issues after high round counts. We're stuck with them now but they won't issue out because of these issues. Knowing the Feds I'm sure they'll scrap them eventually. All our P89s are from the '95-'96 timeframe.

I'm a fan. :)

[JonInWA]

Cathellsk-Great input/actual field experience over a protracted period-Thanks! Regarding the link, I know that Ruger significantly strengthened it, but to the best of my knowledge it was only done once, fairly early in the P85's production cycle, so unless they did it again subsequent to your 95-96 guns, it may be a lurking weak point. I'll try to confirm if Ruger did strengthen the link (again) subsequent to your BOP guns; any idea as to the roundcount at which the links broke, and any feel for how many broke in your experiences with the BOP P89s?

Your reports on the P95 echoes my anecdotal feedback on them-that they're not as durable as their P85/P89 predecessors. Regarding reliability and durability, out of the P-Series lineup (and the subsequent/current SR lineup) the P89 and P90 seem to be the bar-setters.

Best, Jon

[SteveK]

I owned one of the stainless 85s after the drop safety fix. I believe they may have been marked P95II. It was a tank but devoured every factory and reload (some piss-poor) I shoved in it. I actually used it to get rid of about 1000 reloads that absolutely would not feed or function in a Beretta 92 I had at the time. Another gun I should have never gotten rid of.

[Chuck Whitlock]

In the early 90's I found a P85 MKII in a pawn shop at a good price. I stocked it with the Hogue grips and while big and clunky I don't recall any malfunctions (Cletii level round counts) before I sold/traded it.

After some of the TDA love here, and assisting a CHL instructor friend with a new shooter who had a stainless S&W 915, I thought having an exemplar on had might be a good idea. I found a used P95 DC with original box/papers that I got OTD for under 3.5 bills. Looking forward to seeing what it is capable of. My FBI buddy commented that both DA and SA pulls where smoother than his P228 (he made no comparison to his Robar NP3'd P220, however). Incidentally, the original sales receipt was in the box.....sold in 1996 in Omaha, NE, and it doesn't have the link. FWIW.

[cathellsk]

Jon,

I talked to an instructor at Glynco back in '04 when I was there. They told me the barrels on the academy guns along with a lot of small parts had been replaced over the years but that the frames and slides had multiple thousands of rounds through them. She said 400-500,000 rounds actually. I thought that was kinda high but if you consider how many rounds we fire while there and take that back 10yrs it's feasible I guess.

Doing some quick math I'm guessing we put an average of 200rds through a pistol in a day of training at the institution over the course of 8 days total of shooting a year going back to around '95-'96. That's roughly 30k rounds per pistol. That's not including special training classes we have periodically. That's why the barrel links are breaking. Our armorer bought a bunch from Brownell's and we keep them running. I'd say he's replaced the recoil springs too. We could stand to have some mag rebuild kits though or just all new mags period. But they still function right along. I rarely see any malfs.

Since the Ruger P89s the next contract was for Beretta Vertecs in the early 2000s, then Ruger P95s in the late 2000s. Since those aren't going to be issued out as I mentioned above and the Vertec and P89s aren't made anymore we need something else. Last rumor I heard was GLOCK 19s or SIG 229s. Our new Captain mentioned he heard during a conference call about a new contract being awarded for a pistol but couldn't remember what it was. I'm hoping for GLOCK 19s since it's my personal favorite.

Our SORT teams use a different mix of pistols I seen over the years. They are DA/SA instead of DAO. I've seen Beretta Vertecs, S&W 5906s, Sig P228s, and GLOCK 19s.

[JonInWA]

Some other informational points that I've become privy to that might be of interest is that the recoil spring for the P85/P89s are literally intended to be "lifetime" springs, fully capable for the forecasted lifespan of the guns (which I presume to be 20K rounds, IAW the DoD/JSSAP contract specifications). The only 9mm platform that I recall that exceeds this spring replacement interval is HK with their P30, with a recoil spring replacement interval of 25K rounds.

While probably of minimal operational significance, the P85/P89s are specifically designed for a single cartridge to be dropped into the chamber and then the slide closed; the key thing being that the extractor in that scenario snaps over the cartridge rim to be properly positioned/engaged-that sort of thing is usually harmful to extractor hooks, but not so in the case of the P85/P89. This feature is also shared by the Beretta 92, and presumably the other XM9/XM10 participants, but the Ruger and the Beretta are the only ones that I definitively know that this feature was applied to both organizational and commercial guns.

Due to the receiver anodization hardness and coating, despite being aluminum alloy, it's actually harder than the carbon/ordinance steel or stainless steel slides, so grease should be the lubricant of choice for slide/receiver rails-simply using a lighter viscosity oil-type lubricant is too thin, and the receiver rails will impart accelerated wear to the slide rails.

I've found that judicious applications of TW25B or Dri-Slide (a dry film molybdenum disulfide lubricant/anti-corrosive carried in suspension in a liquid solutions, which via gravity and capillary action allows it to travel to difficult to reach (and subsequently clean/re-lubricate) points, and then evaporates, leaving literally a dry film of lubricant, which subsequently lubricates without simultaneously serving as an attractant for dirt and residue)points in the action components (trigger bar, trigger linkage points, trigger trunnions, hammer pivot points) significantly cleans up and smooths out the triggerpull characteristics.

According to one of my Ruger contacts, the barrels of the P85/P89s were made of a proprietary steel (or steel of a proprietary recipe) that was, at least at the time of production, harder than any other OEM barrel steel, significantly adding to the lifespan of the barrels-which would seem to be supported by Cathellsk's experiences and anecdotal history of the BOP's use with their P89s.

Best, Jon

[Rich]

It was a early model . I call it Gen 1

You never knew where your shots would be on paper.

Every group ( if you could call it a group) would be different and shots seem to string.

I never seen anything like it.

I gave it to Mark and Bob who claim to be better shooters and they had the same problem.

The slide to frame fit was real loose . Matter of fact I haven't seen a pistol yet was as loose. I don't know if it played a part into the problem.

But from there on out I refuse to buy a pistol that has any slop.

I ended up traded the P85 in for a NIB Gen 1 80 Combat Elite 1911 45acp

BTW
Just because I had a lemon don't mean I hate the P85 or its later versions?
I've always thought the P was the AK47 of pistols.
And even though I'm a huge S&W revolver nut. My GP100 3inch and 6inch were every bit as accurate and I think stronger than the L frame.
So no Ruger hate here. Hell I even like the mini 14

[JonInWA]

Rich, "slop" can be misleadingly prejudicial sometimes-for example, the FN/Browning Hi Power is noted for a fairly loose slide-to-receiver fit, but examples throughout it's storied production history, in various calibers are usually more than decently accurate-their accuracy is primarily derived from the barrel-to-slide fit more than from their slide-to-receiver fit. Different guns from different manufacturers can perform differently, however...

In the case of your early-production P85, it likely suffered from a variety of accuracy maladies-possibly having a 2-piece barrel, loose/inadequate (for ideal accuracy) barrel-to-slide fit, too small/low sights...Ruger rectified all of these things, but unfortunately subsequent to yours. Realistically, you did have the AK47 of handguns with your early P85: it having AK47-like reliability and durability, combined with rack-grade AK-47-like accuracy...

Best, Jon

[jkurtz7]

I've been meaning to get a P89 for a number of years, but never seem to get around to it. I almost purchased a P90 in '03, but at the last minute a LE friend of mine convinced me that I needed a G23 instead (for a second time). I should have bought the P90, I ended up selling that G23 after only a few months and one box of ammo through it.

I did buy a stainless P97DC in '05, it was pretty accurate, and ate whatever I fed it, even steel cased Wolf. Mine didn't have the self removing slide stop issue, but did develop a trigger bar/sear issue. When the trigger was pulled DA, sometimes the hammer would not fall. I ended up selling it for that reason, and also due to the rising cost of .45acp ammo.

[DI1]

It has been a very long time since I have shot a P89 or P90. I remember that the trigger was horrible, the gun was inaccurate, and malfunctioned consistently. I would not own one today if someone gave it to me for free.

[DI1]

Not trying to be overly harsh, your gun may work fine.
Just my experience.

[JonInWA]

Absolutely no problem, Dl1-one of the great thing on the forum here is gathering a compendium of no-BS analysis and experiences. Ruger made significant improvements to the P85/P89 series' accuracy and triggerpull smoothness throughout the production cycle-and most of the improvements were instituted as running changes, with little to no announcement. I am surprised about the consistant malfunctions you experienced-that's a bit unusual, but I certainly had issues with my P90 (purchased BNIB) also as I related in the thread earlier, but Ruger very expeditiously addressed them (as they did with the subsequent issues with my P944)-did you give Ruger a chance to address the issues with yours?

Best, Jon

[DI1]

Jon,
They were not my guns. I was on a pistol team and the guys that had P89's and P90's had lots of problems with the guns. The triggers were gritty and the guns could not get through 100 rnds of factory ammo without a malfunction.

This was back in early 90's.

[Croesus]

Sorry for the necro-post, but I just stumbled onto this thread.

I got to know and speak with Mike Smisko, the designer of the P-85/89/93, PC-9/40, about six years ago. I was writing a white paper for work about service weapon issues we were having, and solicited his input as an SME.

Long story short. The 9mm P series pistols (and the PC carbines) were very well engineered pieces of machinery. The design inspiration is more russian than german; fewer parts the better. Apparently Bill Ruger Sr. was adamant about simple, clean engineering -- requiring several redesigns to reduce part count. From Mr. Smisko's comments, and from my own experience, the 9mm P 89/93 are well executed and very reliable service pistols. The main components are engineered for a service life well past that of many other reputable manufacturers. I would not hesitate to trust one.

[LittleLebowski]

Sorry for the necro-post, but I just stumbled onto this thread.

I got to know and speak with Mike Smisko, the designer of the P-85/89/93, PC-9/40, about six years ago. I was writing a white paper for work about service weapon issues we were having, and solicited his input as an SME.

Long story short. The 9mm P series pistols (and the PC carbines) were very well engineered pieces of machinery. The design inspiration is more russian than german; fewer parts the better. Apparently Bill Ruger Sr. was adamant about simple, clean engineering -- requiring several redesigns to reduce part count. From Mr. Smisko's comments, and from my own experience, the 9mm P 89/93 are well executed and very reliable service pistols. The main components are engineered for a service life well past that of many other reputable manufacturers. I would not hesitate to trust one.

Wow, thanks for sharing that. Very interesting.

[JonInWA]

Mike Smisko's an old friend, both when he was at Ruger and since his retirement. While he's had a few health issues lately, he's very much still in the game. Mike's given me some great advise and insights over the years. He also continues to push me forward in my use of my P89-last month, I used it very successfully in our Washington State IDPA championship, where it performed superbly, and with zero bobbles of any sort (I on the other hand, had a great time-it was a great match-but I set absolutely no IDPA land-speed records of any sort..but I did have some "personal bests" that I'm pretty pleased with).

Here's an apres match image:

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN3157.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN3157.jpg.html)


Best, Jon

[WilsonCombatRep]

Mike Smisko's an old friend, both when he was at Ruger and since his retirement. While he's had a few health issues lately, he's very much still in the game. Mike's given me some great advise and insights over the years. He also continues to push me forward in my use of my P89-last month, I used it very successfully in our Washington State IDPA championship, where it performed superbly, and with zero bobbles of any sort (I on the other hand, had a great time-it was a great match-but I set absolutely no IDPA land-speed records of any sort..but I did have some "personal bests" that I'm pretty pleased with).

Here's an apres match image:

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Ruger%20P89/DSCN3157.jpg (http://s986.photobucket.com/user/JonInWA/media/Ruger%20P89/DSCN3157.jpg.html)


Best, Jon


Unbreakable firing pin.

[JonInWA]

Unbreakable firing pin.

Meaning? (Unsure if your post is literal, allegorical, or sardonic...)

Best, Jon

[Lomshek]

Meaning? (Unsure if your post is literal, allegorical, or sardonic...)

Best, Jon

I took it literal. The firing pin in my P94 (& I'm guessing the 89 as well) is a big freaking steel rod. Not likely to break easily.

While I bought a replacement some years ago I'm still on the original with way over 50K rounds and lots of dry fire with and without snap caps. Don't use it much now that I got an M&P so haven't bothered to swap firing pins.

[Clay]

I remember the P85 article in SOF magazine showed a firing pin bent 45 degrees without breaking. I still have that issue somewhere.

[Croesus]

Mike is a gentleman and was kind enough to share some of his knowledge with me. Because of my conversations and correspondence with him, I bought a P-93 and a PC-9.

I'm glad to see someone campaigning a P-89 in IDPA. Truly an under appreciated platform.

Thanks to this thread, I dragged out the P-93 for some range time yesterday. Just as I remembered, a great performing pistol. My variant is a DAO -- the only one I could find NIB at the time. I do not find the trigger to be a handicap. As I recall, San Diego PD issued them in the 90's.

I will have to dust off the PC-9 for some range work. Another under appreciated piece. Yes, it too has a somewhat heavy trigger, but certainly no impediment to performing in its designed role.

Please pass along my regards to Mr. Smisko. PM inbound.

[Clay]

I understand Ruger discontinuing the P-series, but I can't help but think that they did it too soon. I see more people buying DA/SA guns now than in the last fifteen years. With that said, it is still a striker fired world - about like the iphone.

[JAH 3rd]

I bought a P-90 in April of 2011 after reading of its discontinuation. Haven’t shot it much but this thread is making me want to take it to the range. The pistol was the last one in stock from Bud’s. It’s stainless with the standard plastic grips.

I know there was a fella over on one of the Ruger forums by the name of “coffeepot”. He was very knowledgeable about the Ruger P-series and said he was very close to that lineup. Anyway, thanks for posting this thread!

[JonInWA]

"Coffeepot" is the gentleman we've discussed shortly back in the thread. He got a bit frustrated with the forums several years back and dropped of the forum participation map. He was truly a gentleman and an exceptionally knowledgeable engineer. Much of my P85/P89/P90/P94 (and others) knowledge has been derived from our discussions over the years. I emailed him awhle back; his daughter replied that he was not in the best of health. I hope he's doing better.

Best, Jon

[Paul D]

The Ruger P89 was the first centerfire handgun I ever owned. Bought it in 1991 and I still have it. It was the only gun that I could afford as a college student. Below are the P89, P90, P91, P93, P95 and P95. I think they were truly underrated because they were kinda chunky and butter faced. Still love them.

52946

[LockedBreech]

I’ve always thought Ruger pistols were unappreciated. If I didn’t already have a surplus of polymer service 9mms I’d be inclined to give the American Pro a try as I reckon it might be a sleeper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigghoss]

About a week or two after the AWB sunset I celebrated my 21st birthday by buying a Ruger P95DC which I still have. Even since I have had a fondness for the Ruger P-series. Within the last couple years I also picked up a P97DC and a P94DC which is pretty darn smooth for a entry-level gun that hadn't been shot much. I think I put more rounds through that gun the first time I took it out than the previous owner did since it was new.

[cjb1911]

My first two centerfiee pistols that my dad bought me around 16/17 were a P89(9) and a P94(40). I sold them years later when glocks took over my life but one thing I remember was the lockup between barrel hood and slide being hilariously bad, like the hood would stick out a good 1/4” from the top of the slide. That didn’t seem to affect function bc both ran fine.

[JRV]

Ruger revolver: “uses cylinder release button”

Ruger pistol: “uses forward-sliding magazine release latch”

Why.

[paherne]

I bought a P85 MkII for $267 in 1993. What a steaming pile of excrement. Bad mags, and I bought all factory mags, not aftermarket. Horrible trigger pull. WAY too big for someone with small hands. I put probably 5k rounds through that turd before I sold it to another deputy for $200, even after I told him it was unreliable. Bought a G19. Wish I still had the G19.

[RevolverRob]

The Ruger P89 was the first centerfire handgun I ever owned. Bought it in 1991 and I still have it. It was the only gun that I could afford as a college student. Below are the P89, P90, P91, P93, P95 and P95. I think they were truly underrated because they were kinda chunky and butter faced. Still love them.

52946

My first was a P95DC - I still have it. Absolutely reliable with a lot of rounds through it. I carried that gun for quite a while as a poor college student. And twice it's been with me when I might have needed a gun.


Ruger revolver: “uses cylinder release button”

Ruger pistol: “uses forward-sliding magazine release latch”

Why.

Because it works better than a push button and almost as good as a lever. Don't push the support side of it with the thumb, push the other side of it with your trigger finger, you don't have to shift your grip at all. Lightning fast reloads that way. I actually think people miss the boat not realizing you should run ambi-mag releases with the trigger finger so you don't shift your grip. If I could get a 1911 with an HK-lever or Ruger-style sliding release, I'd have one, buttons are so passé.

If anything the reason I keep thinking of buying an HK45C is to get the lever mag release back, it's just so much better than a button. I really don't understand why people like buttons.

[JonInWA]

Ruger revolver: “uses cylinder release button”

Ruger pistol: “uses forward-sliding magazine release latch”

Why.

While I don't necessarily think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, I've never had any issues with them, or muffed any reloads because of them. Whie it may take a slightly more deliberate motion to activate, there's also almost no chance of it being inadvertantly pushed rusulting in an uninticipated/undesired magzine release, especially by contact with another object protruding into it or pushing against it.

For me, HK's magazine paddle release levers are the best especially the larger ones on the P30/VP pistols. I'm then slightly more preferential towards the Ruger "push forward to activate" system. The serrations are quite effective. My personal preference is to use my strong-side thumb to activate, but using the trigger finger can be easiy accomplished, especially with practive and built-up muscle memory.

And FWIW, I much prefer Ruger's "rock back to release" double-action revover cylinder release to the Smith & Wesson and/or Colt alternatives.

Given the respective ergonomics of the Ruger semi-auto and Ruger double-action revolver, I think that they chose the most natural and ergonomic solution for both platforms' release systems.

Best, Jon

[medic15al]

I bought a P89 quite literally because of Desperado.

Those were P-90s in 45 Auto.

[Trooper224]

Those were P-90s in 45 Auto.

And I bought one because of that movie.

[Caballoflaco]

I actually think people miss the boat not realizing you should run ambi-mag releases with the trigger finger so you don't shift your grip. If I could get a 1911 with an HK-lever or Ruger-style sliding release, I'd have one, buttons are so passé.
.

This is highly dependent on anatomy. I have long ape-like fingers and can easily hit the push button mag release without shifting my grip on a 1911 or glock. Using my trigger finger is quite difficult because it’s too long to hit the release and I have to break my grip and allow the gun to rotate inward toward my thumb to get room for my trigger finger to press the release.

[RevolverRob]

This is highly dependent on anatomy. I have long ape-like fingers and can easily hit the push button mag release without shifting my grip on a 1911 or glock. Using my trigger finger is quite difficult because it’s too long to hit the release and I have to break my grip and allow the gun to rotate inward toward my thumb to get room for my trigger finger to press the release.

Hey man, just 'cause your a sasquatch...;)

I get what you're putting down, each person is somewhat different.

[medic15al]

While I don't necessarily think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, I've never had any issues with them, or muffed any reloads because of them. Whie it may take a slightly more deliberate motion to activate, there's also almost no chance of it being inadvertantly pushed rusulting in an uninticipated/undesired magzine release, especially by contact with another object protruding into it or pushing against it.

For me, HK's magazine paddle release levers are the best especially the larger ones on the P30/VP pistols. I'm then slightly more preferential towards the Ruger "push forward to activate" system. The serrations are quite effective. My personal preference is to use my strong-side thumb to activate, but using the trigger finger can be easiy accomplished, especially with practive and built-up muscle memory.

And FWIW, I much prefer Ruger's "rock back to release" double-action revover cylinder release to the Smith & Wesson and/or Colt alternatives.

Given the respective ergonomics of the Ruger semi-auto and Ruger double-action revolver, I think that they chose the most natural and ergonomic solution for both platforms' release systems.

Best, Jon

Rock back to release? I thought Ruger revolvers were a push button?

[Bigghoss]

Rock back to release? I thought Ruger revolvers were a push button?

As far as the user is concerned it might as well be, but it actually pivots at the front of the button rather than pushing straight in like a mag release would.

[medic15al]

As far as the user is concerned it might as well be, but it actually pivots at the front of the button rather than pushing straight in like a mag release would.

Ah OK.

[JonInWA]

Absolutely correct, it's a push-and-pivot/push-and-rock back kinda thing. It's a very natural activation motion.

Best, Jon

[JAH 3rd]

Question. On my Ruger P 90 there is a scalloped area on the slide just above the extractor. Don't know if any of the other P-series has this scalloped out area. Just curious as to why it is there. My guess is that it has something to do with the ejected shell. Perhaps more clearance to aid positive ejection. Just curious if you have heard this area addressed in your discussions over the years.

[JonInWA]

Question. On my Ruger P 90 there is a scalloped area on the slide just above the extractor. Don't know if any of the other P-series has this scalloped out area. Just curious as to why it is there. My guess is that it has something to do with the ejected shell. Perhaps more clearance to aid positive ejection. Just curious if you have heard this area addressed in your discussions over the years.

Frankly, it's never come up at all. It looks like it's present on the P85, P89, P90 and presumably on the P91. I don't think it has anything to do with empty cartridge ejection; it may just be an area where Ruger felt they could lighten the slide a small bit, as it's an area where metal/weight/structural reeinforcement isn't required. Aesthetically, it's a nice touch as well, providing a curved surface instead of unbroken blockiness-but that's my opinion. It looks to me that the P-Series guns with grasping grooves in that location (P94, P95, etc.) don't have the scallop, but may have a slightly reduced metal area.

Best, Jon

[JAH 3rd]

Thanks Jon!

[Baldanders]

Back when I first saw a P89 in a gun shop my reaction was "that's the ugliest pistol I've ever seen!"

Which stikes me as bizarre now. It really only makes sense when you realize I was comparing it to SIGs, Berettas, and S&W 3rd gen pistols. The wondernine market had a lot of pretty guns.

Now the P89 strikes me as ruggedly handsome. Probably not in my future, but it would be on my short list of "likely guns I would direct a newb to in a pawn shop." Although I think most P89 buyers probably still own them.

It seems the P-series is securing a place and reputation in the used market much like the Security-Six has. Discontinued, not too expensive, and with a solid reputation for good performance.

ETA: that was probably a P85 that I first saw, but cosmetics didn't change much to the P89.

[john c]

How were the other models of the P-series compared to the P89? The subsequent P93 and P95 address some of the size issues of the P89.

[JonInWA]

The P93 and P94 were intended to be slightly product-improved variants of the P85/89/P91 in 9mm, and the .40 P94 (with a code of P944 an absolutely necessary product replacement for the .40 P91, which simply did not have the durability for sustained .40 use. At the end of the day, I preferred my product-improved 2007 vintage P89 to the P94/P944, but I'll freely admit that a lot of it was for aesthetic reasons; operationally the later gun was just fine (althought my particular P89 was significantly more accurate in my sample size of 2 P89s and 1 P944).

The original P944 in .40 had a swinging link; after several years that was eliminated and replaced with the camblock system, which was much more viable for .40. A camblock P944 can be easily identified from the exterior by a polymer filler piece on the left side.

I never had one, but I thought the P93 was a great compact P-Series. I had a P94; (a swinging link P944); it was ok, but nothing special, even after a custom action job and a nifty set of Letts laminate checkered grips; I hope whoever has it enjoys and appreciates it. There was also a P89M/P89M DAO, which was simply a P93/P93DAO specifically rebranded and rollmarked P89M for the Chicago PD, ostensibly to cover the fact or fool some that what was branded as a full-size Ruger was actually a compact one. Go figure. (and yes, I'm not pulling anyone's leg on this).

I prefer the sturdiness of the P89 to the P95, and I simply don't have any significant issues with carrying a P89 concealed, so my interest in acquiring a P95 was negligable. Later production ones have a revised, more rounded triggerguard and better frame stippling, so those would be the ones I'd recommend if you want to go the P95 route.

Otherwise, the P90 was, and is, a superb .45 ACP Ruger; I preferred t to the subsequent P97. The P90 had the swinging link, the P97 the camblock. Terre were some harmonic vibrations with some P97s causing firing vibrations to cause the slide stop to drift out in use; the fix was simply to switch to another slide stop, which usually fixed the problem. Both were very good guns I had a LEO P90m with a special black QPQ finish, Meprolight tritium sights and Ruger-branded Hogue rubber grips; it initially had some going into battery issues, which Ruger Customer Support immediately and definitively fixed. The P97 performed flawlessly, but was simply one of those vinally guns that ever captivated my interest, so after a year or so it was traded, for my Gen 3 Glock G21 as I recall. I should have kept the P90, though...

Best, Jon

[TheNewbie]

How easy was the decocker/safety to use on the P series?

[JonInWA]

How easy was the decocker/safety to use on the P series?

With the earlier P85 MkII, early P89s with the "nub" safety shelf, a bit of a challenge. Once Ruger switched to the larger shelved and better positioned/angled shelf, not a problem.

Best, Jon

[JAH 3rd]

When I bought my Ruger P-90, I gave it a once over, paying attention to the owner's manual. Sometimes the manual of arms from different manufacturers call the same part a different name. Depending on the manufacturer the crane or yoke is what supports the cylinder on a revolver. Or a slide stop or slide release in a pistol.

So when I was activating the thumb safety on the P-90, I noticed the firing pin moved forward in the slide as the safety dropped. So when the hammer fell, the firing pin was far enough forward that the hammer never could touch it. Just thought this was an interesting take when comparing it to my S&W 5906 or Beretta M9 commercial and the way the safety works on those two pistols.

[TheNewbie]

With the earlier P85 MkII, early P89s with the "nub" safety shelf, a bit of a challenge. Once Ruger switched to the larger shelved and better positioned/angled shelf, not a problem.

Best, Jon

How would you say it compares to the 92FS safety?

I think the Ruger P345 hade some potential, at least theoretically, but the ILS would be a deal killer for me.

[Joe in PNG]

My first centerfire handgun was a P-95DC- filled with Cor-Bon JHP's no less.

[JonInWA]

How would you say it compares to the 92FS safety?

I think the Ruger P345 hade some potential, at least theoretically, but the ILS would be a deal killer for me.

I think that the later safety lever on the P89s (and similar on the other P-series Rugers) compares favorably with the levers on Beretta 92-series pistols. The earlier Ruger lever configuration, not so much.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Although I was pretty pleased with the Hogue Fingergroove rubber grips,

I had see-sawed for a period back to the OEM Xenoy grips, as I liked both their durability (I've literally never heard of a grip plate breaking or cracking) and their thinner profile. However I had two problems with them: 1) the sharp tang at the upper left grip curvature, even after some judicious filing and sanding, and 2) their relative slick surface, not providing a firm enough grip for me. I has experimented by having my gunsmith lightly bead-blast them, and while it provided a nice subdued matte finish, grip effectiveness wasn't significantly improved. The OEM Ruger grips had horizontal grooves molded in, much like World War II Walther P38 grips; they provided some grippiness over a smooth surface, and were easy to clean dirt and detritus out of the grooves, but were not particularly effective in significantly increasing the grip.

https://i.imgur.com/wQgrW00h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/NA0zFQbh.jpg

As part of the updating Ruger did when the P93 and P94 were created, in addition to the more streamlined slide and receiver, the grips, while remaining of excellent Xenoy material, were modified in three ways; 1) The grips were dished in more significantly, increasing users grip on the receiver by reducing the size of the grips, 2) The horizontal grooves were replaced by a form of polymid checkering, similar to what Glock ended up with on their Gen4 and Gen5 receivers. The last modification, 3), was that the upper left grip protruded out further from the frame due to it covering a revised spring setup on the P93/94 compared to the P85/89; this provided a flush fit to the P93/94 frames, but protruded out as a shelf when placed in the P89 frame.

Replacing the P89 OEM grips with the P93/94 OEM grips for increased grippiness was suggested to me years ago by Mike Smisko, one of Rugers P85/P89 project engineers; he stated that while the grips came from different molds, the fit specifications were essentially the same, and the P93/94 grips would be workable in the P89 receiver with some minor reworking. I filed that in the back of my mind, but didn't think to go that route for many years after we discussed it.

So-why the change? Well, as good as the Hogue rubber fingergroove grips are, they still add some bulk and additional hand displacement to the frame. Additionally, over time some devulcanization can occur, giving a tacky feel, and some surface degradation (which I found slightly occurring on the inner grip retaining tabs). While dealable by applying rubbing alcohol, I really wanted to side-step both issues by going back to the improved Xenoy Ruger grips.

William Ruger was exceptionally demanding of inherent quality and durability of all his gun's components, and the P85/P89 was a very personal flagship project-he very much wanted to win the DoD pistol trials of the 1980s, and have a Ruger as the US military's issue sidearm. The P85 wasn't quite ready for the XM9 trials, but was ready for the subsequent XM10 trials. From what I've been able to gather, the modified P85s submitted passed the trials with flying colors, but the XM10 was Beretta's to lose-which they didn't...so there was no Ruger M10 (although as a Group XO and when in the Corps Forward Field Tactical Operations Center, I did carry one as my personal defensive weapon, but that's another story...) I discuss some of the history of the P85 and P89 in a previous p-f thread for any interested: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?11782-My-DA-SA-Traditional-Ruger-P89

I easily and inexpensively found a set of lightly used P94 OEM grips on eBay, for about $15. After thoroughly cleaning and drying, I found that they almost perfectly fit in my P89's receiver, needing but light taps with the polymer head of my Lyman gunsmithing hammer, and the screw holes aligned perfectly
https://i.imgur.com/HUDLDQVh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/71EL3Bxh.jpg

The right grip snapped immediately into place, with a flush fit. The left grip plate at the grip top protruded shelf-like in the P89 frame, necessitating light filing and sanding to bevel the shelf for comfort when using, and to blend in at the top rear curve of the grip tang.
https://i.imgur.com/Pp08sMjh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LygA4O0h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/32mHEEEh.jpg

In all other dimensions, the left grip provided a perfect grip in the receiver grip recess, after being lightly tapped in.

In use, I've found the following:

1). Better overall ergonomics, due to the slimmer grip receiver dimensions;

2). Increased grippiness, due to the much more effective polymid molded checkering;

3) Increased grippiness and index due to the beveled upper shelf for my strong-hand thumb-a nice unexpected benefit.

I embellished (or made ridiculously garish) the appearance by using a red Lacquer-Stik to fill in the "Ruger" molded in the grip surface-hey, it's my gun....

So there you have it. I much prefer the P94 grips on the P89 to the OEM horizontally grooved Xenoy grip for their reduced grip dimensions, and increased grippiness, and I prefer them to the Hogue rubber fingergroove grips due to the decreased bulk (and probably longer lifespan). Years ago, I had tried and used for years the Craig Spegel-designed Uncle Mikes Santoprene rubber checkered grips for the P85/P89, but I eventually experienced deterioration in their retaining tabs which compromised their retention in the gun, so I also consider the P94 grips to be a superior solution to them (I assume that they also pop up occasionally on eBay and similar, usually at pretty inflated prices).

I doubt that this discussion will result in land-office sales rates for surplus or used P94 OEM Xenoy grips, but they are a very viable option for period P85/P89/P91 users-and pretty much plug and play.

Best, Jon

[Crusader]

I bought a P89 quite literally because of Desperado.

Ha ha, you and me both. Sure wish I still had it.

[JonInWA]

I suspect that many people bought these because of their price point and advertised features, as well as Ruger's marketing and positioning, without really realizing just how good they actually could be.

Two product improved serial number sequences to look for are 304-70000 and later (where Ruger modified the barrel and slide relationship and positioning, with the rear breechblock of the barrel slightly rising at a subtle angle above the plane of the slide when in battery) and the magazine tubes and magazine catch cut-out modified in shape and position to allow the magazine to be positioned slightly higher in the receiver, facilitating an improved (more straight) path for cartridges from the magazine into the chamber; these and subsequent serials had increased accuracy due to these modifications. The second serial sequence is 315- and higher, and look for the right side rollmarkings underneath the slide ejection port to be the stylized Ruger eagle (but with only a "R" in its center) and the rollmarking of "RUGER" superimposed above a smaller font "Prescott, AZ USA"

Best, Jon

[Moped]

For the money, I thought the P89 was the best Wonder 9mm out there. They were tanks compared to pretty much another 9mm SA. I purchased one in November of 1990, just prior to my Army Reserve Battalion getting activated for Desert Storm. I left it at home with my wife for HD. As I remember I purchased it new for $289 at a local gun show.

The one drawback to them was they were bulky and heavy. Definitely not a very concealable pistol. I thought they would have made a great service pistol for the U.S. Military. I never found any 9mm ammunition that they wouldn't feed. Including the cheap Egyptian 9mm Submachinegun ammunition you could buy through Shotgun News. You know, the stuff with the hard primers.

I've often regretted trading that pistol away. Wouldn't mind having another one. I find that they are getting higher and higher in price (like everything else).

[TheNewbie]

Ruger should forget about the American series and update these as a new polymer version. Full size, mid size, compact affordable, quality, reliable DA/SA guns.



There is a reason I post on gun forums vs working for a gun company. My ideas likely wouldn’t make money.

[Guerrero]

The second serial sequence is 315- and higher, and look for the right side rollmarkings underneath the slide ejection port to be the stylized Ruger eagle (but with only a "R" in its center) and the rollmarking of "RUGER" superimposed above a smaller font "Prescott, AZ USA"

Best, Jon

Curse you and your attention to detail that we can use to search, but there might be one on Gunbroker right now.

[TheNewbie]

How is the spare part supply for these compared to 3rd Gen smiths?

[JonInWA]

How is the spare part supply for these compared to 3rd Gen smiths?

Ruger currently provides limited parts and services for the out of production P85/P89 platforms-you have to specifically query Customer Service to see if what you need is available, but they're kinda like Security Six revolvers (which Ruger definitely no longer supports): What breaks on a P85/P89? Not too much, ever. Wolff has replacement recoil springs and recoil spring calibration springs in various weights, Numrich and eBay have parts and parts kits.

Hogue (and others) makes grips in various incarnations, and grip screws.

The only components my Ruger source recommended to get was a spare recoil spring, and an extractor (in case I ever blew one out). Both have set in my Ruger parts bag for probably 10 years.

Out of the metal-frame P-Series, the only one that I'd have any qualms about buying would the the P91, which was under-engineered (or not over-engineered to traditional acceptable William Ruger standards, and quickly exited the market after a brief 2 year production run.

Similarly, if you have a yearning for a .40 P94 (which some confusingly call aP944, which was the ordering SKU), my suggestion would be to get the later production cambloc model, distinguished by a square/rectangular polymer filler piece on the left side of the pistol; while the earlier swinging link .40 P94 is probably ok (I had one and had no issues with it, but probably put less than 2,000 rounds through it), the camblock variant is definitely better for longevity.

Best, Jon

[JAH 3rd]

About 3 or 4 years ago I ordered from Ruger a spring for the magazine release on my P 90. Just wanted to have a spare on hand. Gave the nice lady the serial number and shipping info. Had it in a week at no charge.

[Guerrero]

JonInWA you need to get together with MattyD380 for a Ruger P89 episode of "Hipster Tactical".

[Guerrero]

If anyone is interested:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/989085097


JonInWA is there any way to make them decock-only?

[JonInWA]

If anyone is interested:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/989085097


JonInWA is there any way to make them decock-only?

First, that's almost certainly one of the Product Improved beneficiaries I discussed-the serial (316-68264) and the rollmark banner are clues. Using the Ruger serial # look-up, it's a 2008 production model.

https://ruger.com/dataProcess/serialHistory/

I don't know if it's feasible to convert a manual safety model to a decock only; the first question would be to ascertain if it's mechanically feasible via parts application, and the second would be if the necessary parts are available.

I'd give Ruger Customer Service/Tech support a call, but take a hard look at the schematic for both versions first; Ruger has them online in the respective manual (actually, schematics for all versions may be in the same manual).

If anyone here has been remotely swayed by my siren songs of praise for the P89, this would be one of the absolute best candidates to jump on in my opinion. Mine is a manual safety model, and I've had no issues with it; I usually load and carry safety off. The ergos of the late model safety levers are actually quite good. I suspect that the seller has absolutely no idea of what they've got, nor would 99.9% of potential buyers. It would be great if a p-f member got it-hey, the worst case would be that you could make fun of me for years....

Best, Jon

[Guerrero]

If anyone here has been remotely swayed by my siren songs of praise for the P89, this would be one of the absolute best candidates to jump on in my opinion.

Again: tempt me not, Enabler!


Serial number lookup says it shipped in 2008

[JonInWA]

I resemble that remark....


Best, Jon

[MandoWookie]

https://youtu.be/7uFB_L7PzjI


Probably one of the best overviews of the P series on YouTube.
Even if it is done by a sarcastic millennial.

[JonInWA]

Again: tempt me not, Enabler!


Serial number lookup says it shipped in 2008

Correct, the Product Improvement Program affected P89s in a good way at least from some point in August 2007 on (mine is an August 2007 production piece).

Best, Jon

[john c]

Jon;

What is your opinion of the P95 and P97? Any info on product updates on these pistols?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonInWA]

https://youtu.be/7uFB_L7PzjI


Probably one of the best overviews of the P series on YouTube.
Even if it is done by a sarcastic millennial.

That was a pretty good overview. His P-Series knowledge was pretty good, I was impressed that he knew the salient features of the P89M and the cambloc models. Whether he's a p-f level user I'm a bit skeptical-the simultaneous two gun thing with gloved hand was more fanboi than serious. And it doesn't sound like he's a consistent, more-than-occasional shooter.

I've never heard of anyone else having the safety lever/extractor issues he has with his P95, but I'm not the biggest P95 fan, and not really tuned into that platform.

The triggerpull on my P89 is smooth, without stacking, but I'm pretty meticulous about applying appropriate lubricants to appropriate lubrication points, both as part of new weapon pre-shooting protocol and after use maintenance.

Interestingly, although one of his historical images was from the LEO catalog, he didn't discuss the LEO models, as there were finish and equipment options on them for a period that were not normally available to the commercial market.

And he certainly was quite the smarmy little millennial....apparently he was too young to grow the requisite operator beard, though...

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Jon;

What is your opinion of the P95 and P97? Any info on product updates on these pistols?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not a fan of the P95-I think you're much better off with a P89, P90, P93 or P94.

I'm ambivalent regarding the P97. Intrinsically, I think the P90 is a better .45 ACP Ruger platform, but the P97 isn't bad, arguable being the best of the polymer frame P-Series. On some of them, harmonic vibration from recoil forces could cause the slide stop to drift out; the fix was for the factor to rummage through a bin of P97 slide stops and replace the original with one that had a bit of a tighter fit, which resolved the drifting. On the P97 that I personally owned for several years, that issue did not occur, and my ownership experience was totally uneventful.

I did have a LEO P90, which had issues in chambering JHP cartridges; a quick trip to Ruger Customer Service totally resolved that issue (that gun came with a black QPC finish, a rounded trigger, and OEM Meprolite tritium night sights).

I believe that my P94 in .40 developed a hammer follow issue, which again was quickly resolved by Ruger Customer Service; I believe they ended up replacing the sear. My P94 was the earlier production swinging link action, but I don't think that was a causal factor to the issue at hand.

While Ruger has, and continues to make solid, value-priced products, in my opinion the apogee of their centerfire pistol production peaked with the P89, P90, P93 and P94 (and, for the .40 P94, the camblock variant).

I don't think that for longevity, durability, and low forecasted component replacement, provided reasonable maintenance and lubrication there's much on today's market that can approach them, other than HK. And as much as I like Glocks, the Rugers have lower parts replacement schedules. While a Glock is in a world of its own for ease of detailed disassembly/reassembly, with Ruger and HK there's likely to be far less of a need, particular at the user level for there to be much more required for protracted maintenance than routine field stripping.

Best, Jon

[TheNewbie]

I'm not a fan of the P95-I think you're much better off with a P89, P90, P93 or P94.

I'm ambivalent regarding the P97. Intrinsically, I think the P90 is a better .45 ACP Ruger platform, but the P97 isn't bad, arguable being the best of the polymer frame P-Series. On some of them, harmonic vibration from recoil forces could cause the slide stop to drift out; the fix was for the factor to rummage through a bin of P97 slide stops and replace the original with one that had a bit of a tighter fit, which resolved the drifting. On the P97 that I personally owned for several years, that issue did not occur, and my ownership experience was totally uneventful.

I did have a LEO P90, which had issues in chambering JHP cartridges; a quick trip to Ruger Customer Service totally resolved that issue (that gun came with a black QPC finish, a rounded trigger, and OEM Meprolite tritium night sights).

I believe that my P94 in .40 developed a hammer follow issue, which again was quickly resolved by Ruger Customer Service; I believe they ended up replacing the sear. My P94 was the earlier production swinging link action, but I don't think that was a causal factor to the issue at hand.

While Ruger has, and continues to make solid, value-priced products, in my opinion the apogee of their centerfire pistol production peaked with the P89, P90, P93 and P94 (and, for the .40 P94, the camblock variant).

I don't think that for longevity, durability, and low forecasted component replacement, provided reasonable maintenance and lubrication there's much on today's market that can approach them, other than HK. And as much as I like Glocks, the Rugers have lower parts replacement schedules. While a Glock is in a world of its own for ease of detailed disassembly/reassembly, with Ruger and HK there's likely to be far less of a need, particular at the user level for there to be much more required for protracted maintenance than routine field stripping.

Best, Jon

What do you not like about the P95?

[MattyD380]

JonInWA you need to get together with MattyD380 for a Ruger P89 episode of "Hipster Tactical".

It’s on the docket, for sure.

105685

I’m trying to finish my HK P9S review… and I just moved. It’s been crazy. But maybe I’ll do the P89 next. And maybe I’ll quote JonInWA if he’s amenable :)

I only have a few hundred rounds through mine, but it really is a very, very shooting gun. No caveats. No “for an inexpensive gun” clauses. It just shoots… well. It really doesn’t feel like a compromise at all.

Sorry, HK :)

[JonInWA]

It’s on the docket, for sure.

105685

I’m trying to finish my HK P9S review… and I just moved. It’s been crazy. But maybe I’ll do the P89 next. And maybe I’ll quote JonInWA if he’s amenable :)

I only have a few hundred rounds through mine, but it really is a very, very shooting gun. No caveats. No “for an inexpensive gun” clauses. It just shoots… well. It really doesn’t feel like a compromise at all.

Sorry, HK :)

JonInWA is certainly amenable, Matty, you're more than welcome to quote me and use me however I can help.

Best, Jon

[Duelist]

I'm not a fan of the P95-I think you're much better off with a P89, P90, P93 or P94.

I'm ambivalent regarding the P97. Intrinsically, I think the P90 is a better .45 ACP Ruger platform, but the P97 isn't bad, arguable being the best of the polymer frame P-Series. On some of them, harmonic vibration from recoil forces could cause the slide stop to drift out; the fix was for the factor to rummage through a bin of P97 slide stops and replace the original with one that had a bit of a tighter fit, which resolved the drifting. On the P97 that I personally owned for several years, that issue did not occur, and my ownership experience was totally uneventful.

I did have a LEO P90, which had issues in chambering JHP cartridges; a quick trip to Ruger Customer Service totally resolved that issue (that gun came with a black QPC finish, a rounded trigger, and OEM Meprolite tritium night sights).

I believe that my P94 in .40 developed a hammer follow issue, which again was quickly resolved by Ruger Customer Service; I believe they ended up replacing the sear. My P94 was the earlier production swinging link action, but I don't think that was a causal factor to the issue at hand.

While Ruger has, and continues to make solid, value-priced products, in my opinion the apogee of their centerfire pistol production peaked with the P89, P90, P93 and P94 (and, for the .40 P94, the camblock variant).

I don't think that for longevity, durability, and low forecasted component replacement, provided reasonable maintenance and lubrication there's much on today's market that can approach them, other than HK. And as much as I like Glocks, the Rugers have lower parts replacement schedules. While a Glock is in a world of its own for ease of detailed disassembly/reassembly, with Ruger and HK there's likely to be far less of a need, particular at the user level for there to be much more required for protracted maintenance than routine field stripping.

Best, Jon

The P90 was one of the most accurate semiautos I’ve ever shot, and certainly superior to the P97 in feel, recoil impulse, and some other stuff. I wasn’t experienced enough to appreciate just how good the P90 was at the time I shot one - my brother’s in-laws owned it,and inshot it several times at family range days. Had I been a little sharper, I would have acquired one instead of some other stuff I got at the time.

Haven’t seen one for sale in years. 4516-1 is my TDA .45, though, and I have a stack of magazines for it, so I probably won’t seek one out at this point.

[MandoWookie]

That was a pretty good overview. His P-Series knowledge was pretty good, I was impressed that he knew the salient features of the P89M and the cambloc models. Whether he's a p-f level user I'm a bit skeptical-the simultaneous two gun thing with gloved hand was more fanboi than serious. And it doesn't sound like he's a consistent, more-than-occasional shooter.

I've never heard of anyone else having the safety lever/extractor issues he has with his P95, but I'm not the biggest P95 fan, and not really tuned into that platform.

The triggerpull on my P89 is smooth, without stacking, but I'm pretty meticulous about applying appropriate lubricants to appropriate lubrication points, both as part of new weapon pre-shooting protocol and after use maintenance.

Interestingly, although one of his historical images was from the LEO catalog, he didn't discuss the LEO models, as there were finish and equipment options on them for a period that were not normally available to the commercial market.

And he certainly was quite the smarmy little millennial....apparently he was too young to grow the requisite operator beard, though...

Best, Jon


He may or may not be reading PF, but if not he's coming to similar conclusions independently then. He definitely leans more to the best bang for your buck side of shooting than the Instagram tactical side. IIRC the videos on the P series he did( and the Sigma, Spanish wonder 9s, Saturday Night specials etc...) were while he was a broke college student. Then he got picked up by TFBTv to be their designated 'cheap SOB' reviewer. Most of his videos nowadays focus a lot around NV and optics, with the occasional review for TFB on new guns on the budget end of things.

Besides cheap guns of the 80s and 90s, he also has a series of videos on old optics, like the Trijicon reflex sights, C-More, and Bushnells.

At least for me, who grew up seeing these old guns and optics in magazines and the internet as the peak of gun tech, but never being able to buy them because of either not being legally able to, or later afford to, it's a neat topic that doesn't get much coverage these days.

https://youtu.be/ehC1NkvcT7U

[MandoWookie]

What's the general opinion on the P345? I remember not too long ago they could be found dirt cheap in my area, but they have all seemed to dry up. Always liked the looks of them, and they seem like they would be a decent DA/SA carry .45 option if they are reliable and as slim as they look online. Especially compared to the P90.

[JonInWA]

What's the general opinion on the P345? I remember not too long ago they could be found dirt cheap in my area, but they have all seemed to dry up. Always liked the looks of them, and they seem like they would be a decent DA/SA carry .45 option if they are reliable and as slim as they look online. Especially compared to the P90.

If they were dryfired without the magazine in place, the firing pin could be damaged to the point of inoperability.

If you get one, I would either send it immediately back to Ruger for their check-up, or to a knowledgeable gunsmith. I would probably at a minimum replace the firing pin, recoil spring,magazine springs.

Or just get a P90, which will likely have at least equal, if not greater accuracy and less snowflake issues. Yeah, the P345 might feel a bit better in hand, but the P90 ergos are actually quite decent and I suspect it'll be more durable.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

What do you not like about the P95?

Just not a fan, I think the P95 marked the period where Ruger was seemingly concentrating more on marketing/marketability than engineering and durability. I'm not implying that a P95 is a piece of junk, but I think a P93 is a better bet for long term durability in a P-Series compact pistol niche. The P93/P94 are essentially aesthetically streamlined and aesthetically cleaned-up P89s, with some minor mechanical/component improvements (but the later substitution of the camblock over the swinging link in .40 P94s was a major and very significant improvement regarding the P-Series .40). But I think in 9mm the swinging link setup is just fine, and has nicely withstood the test of time. In .40, I think the camblock setup is better. While the P95 has the camblock, and is at least theoretically a more durable system, I don't really consider it a necessary improvement until you move to .40.

I personally just think that the 9mm P89/P93/P94s are a bit more bulletproof than a P95; YMMV.

Best, Jon

[lee n. field]

Jon;

What is your opinion of the P95 and P97? Any info on product updates on these pistols?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My recollection is, the P97 went away when the P345 came, which was (so the Innernet tells me) 2004. The P95 got a refresh late in the game, and might have been the very last of the P series.

[MattyD380]

JonInWA is certainly amenable, Matty, you're more than welcome to quote me and use me however I can help.

Best, Jon

Thanks, Jon! I appreciate it. Your posts comprise the foundation of my P-Series knowledge. I’ll let you know when I get into it—the P89 definitely has a story worth telling.

[JonInWA]

If anyone is interested:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/989085097


JonInWA is there any way to make them decock-only?

I see it sold; did one of us get it? Best, Jon

[JAH 3rd]

Shipped in 2008 per Ruger serial number lookup.

[Guerrero]

I see it sold; did one of us get it? Best, Jon

One of you guys outbid me for it.

[Jumme]

Thanks, Jon! I appreciate it. Your posts comprise the foundation of my P-Series knowledge. I’ll let you know when I get into it—the P89 definitely has a story worth telling.


Matt, just a bump of the thread to let you know I enjoyed your review of the P89👍…

Thanks for putting in the time giving such a pedestrian gun😋 a moment in the spotlights!

Regards

[MattyD380]

Matt, just a bump of the thread to let you know I enjoyed your review of the P89👍…

Thanks for putting in the time giving such a pedestrian gun😋 a moment in the spotlights!

Regards

Thanks, Bjorn! Really appreciate it. I think the P89 deserves to be seen as more than just a pedestrian gun. I really like the pistol... period. Regardless of how much it costs or any other considerations.

JonInWA I tried to send you a PM and your box was full - LOL - wanted to see if you had any builds/thoughts on the writeup. I don't think I made any erroneous claims... but you are the resident P Series guru :)

[JonInWA]

Matty, that's a superb write-up and analysis. In addition to what you covered, I'll add a couple of things: 1. According to my sources, prior to the XM9/XM10 trials, Ruger performed some incremental changes; the swinging link was thickened, the sights were slightly enlarged, the slide release was given a flatter shape with less mass, and I believe that the sear was modified. 2. I also believe that Ruger continued to play with the Xenoy grip plates in terms of how thick and how much dishing there was. Other than that, I believe that the biggest thing for the XM10 trials was the introduction of a locking grubscrew into the rear sight to firmly set the sight to preclude movement in the dovetail (or, conversely, to allow some more movement to facilitate adjustment, and then to lock it in once adjusted).

Other more substantive changes came later-mainly the barrel/slide fitment modification that provided more accuracy, and the magazine latch and magazine tube modifications, which allowed the magazine to sit slightly higher in the receiver providing cartridges a more direct path from magazine to chamber. The later magazines were likely produced by Mec-Gar for Ruger, and the basepads switched from stamped steel to a thicker polymer on both 15 and 10 round magazines. OEM magazines were stainless, but blued ones were available, both from Shop Ruger and Mec-Gar, and there were eventually at least 2 variants of the 10 round magazines, distinguished by how the basepad was affixed to the tube.

Absolutely feel free to link, or provide in toto your review into this thread. Excellent job!

Best, Jon

[Gary1911A1]

I had a P85 and I wish I had kept it. It was built like a tank and I thought the trigger was as good as a Sig. This thread has me looking for one again.

[camsdaddy]

A friend of mine had a P89 and it amazed me that a gun that could be purchased at that price could be that accurate and fun to shoot. I would bet that most of them are still running but have been replaced for lighter, less bulky options.

I saw a reminder the other day that if you are familiar with a Ruger P series pistol its time to have your prostate checked. It doesn't seem like its been that long since they come out until I did the math.

[JAH 3rd]

I have a Ruger P90 and it's made at a price point. Front and back strap slick and smooth. No traction there. Same with the grips. They have horizontal lines, but I can't see where that adds traction. A personal observation, I like more light on either side of the front sight. The barrel has a swing link ala 1911.

On the plus side, it's been 100% reliable. Once you get the hang of disassembly, it is a snap. The frame rails are huge. It is a well-finished pistol.

One question: On the slide, there is a scalloped out area. It is located from the rear of the ejection (right side) and runs to the front edge of the rear sight. Just wondering if this has any functionality or is just ornamental. My pistol was built in 2010.

https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/760723/ruger-p90-45-acp-pr52015.jpg


I plan to hang on to this pistol.

[MattyD380]

Matty, that's a superb write-up and analysis. In addition to what you covered, I'll add a couple of things: 1. According to my sources, prior to the XM9/XM10 trials, Ruger performed some incremental changes; the swinging link was thickened, the sights were slightly enlarged, the slide release was given a flatter shape with less mass, and I believe that the sear was modified. 2. I also believe that Ruger continued to play with the Xenoy grip plates in terms of how thick and how much dishing there was. Other than that, I believe that the biggest thing for the XM10 trials was the introduction of a locking grubscrew into the rear sight to firmly set the sight to preclude movement in the dovetail (or, conversely, to allow some more movement to facilitate adjustment, and then to lock it in once adjusted).

Other more substantive changes came later-mainly the barrel/slide fitment modification that provided more accuracy, and the magazine latch and magazine tube modifications, which allowed the magazine to sit slightly higher in the receiver providing cartridges a more direct path from magazine to chamber. The later magazines were likely produced by Mec-Gar for Ruger, and the basepads switched from stamped steel to a thicker polymer on both 15 and 10 round magazines. OEM magazines were stainless, but blued ones were available, both from Shop Ruger and Mec-Gar, and there were eventually at least 2 variants of the 10 round magazines, distinguished by how the basepad was affixed to the tube.

Absolutely feel free to link, or provide in toto your review into this thread. Excellent job!

Best, Jon

Thanks so much, Jon!

Really appreciate the kind words. It definitely makes me feel good to have your seal of approval... because you know about as much about P-Series guns as anyone I've come across.

As the review intimates, I didn't expect to be so taken and impressed with the P89. No, it's not perfect, but anything short of "Excellent" feels like I'm underselling it--regardless of the price or any other considerations. If the Beretta 92 and the Sig P226 are "quintessential" wondernines... so must be the P89.

Also, thanks for those nuggets of wisdom. I recall reading in one of your threads (likely this one) about the the mag-alignment tweak. That seems fairly significant as far as feeding reliability. I plan to go back and add these updates to the written review.

In any case, here's a link to the writeup, if anyone's interested (YouTube review is also embedded, therein)...

https://hipstertactical.com/blog/ruger-p89-review-for-what-it-isnt

Thanks again, Jon!

[oregon45]

What's the consensus on the blued Mec-Gar magazines for the P89? Local shop has a very nice P89 in the case for $299 and if the Mec-Gar mags are good to go I think I may become a P89 owner. My Dad's had a P97DC for almost 20-years and it's sent thousands of 205gr LSWC's over Bullseye down range without a hitch.

[JonInWA]

What's the consensus on the blued Mec-Gar magazines for the P89? Local shop has a very nice P89 in the case for $299 and if the Mec-Gar mags are good to go I think I may become a P89 owner. My Dad's had a P97DC for almost 20-years and it's sent thousands of 205gr LSWC's over Bullseye down range without a hitch.

Mec-Gar magazines are excellent, and Mec-Gar was in fact the OEM for Ruger for the later series of P89 magazines. They're usually less expensive then the Ruger branded ones at Shop Ruger, but functionally are the same. They also have an excellent guarantee, which I can personally attest that they stand behind. Buy and use with complete confidence. Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

I have a Ruger P90 and it's made at a price point. Front and back strap slick and smooth. No traction there. Same with the grips. They have horizontal lines, but I can't see where that adds traction. A personal observation, I like more light on either side of the front sight. The barrel has a swing link ala 1911.

On the plus side, it's been 100% reliable. Once you get the hang of disassembly, it is a snap. The frame rails are huge. It is a well-finished pistol.

One question: On the slide, there is a scalloped out area. It is located from the rear of the ejection (right side) and runs to the front edge of the rear sight. Just wondering if this has any functionality or is just ornamental. My pistol was built in 2010.

https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/760723/ruger-p90-45-acp-pr52015.jpg


I plan to hang on to this pistol.

To the best of my knowledge, that scalloped area is just aesthetic, and perhaps provides a slight reduction in weight. The subsequent P93/P94s did not have it, instead the area was built up with the rest of the slide, and then the grasping grooves (another subsequent addition) rolled over it.

Best, Jon

[jh9]

General P-series ruger question. Is converting between a manual safety and decock-only variant as straightforward as changing the slides? Plenty of DC slides / parts kits on ebay and we still have a manual safety P90 around here somewhere...

[H8Train]

General P-series ruger question. Is converting between a manual safety and decock-only variant as straightforward as changing the slides? Plenty of DC slides / parts kits on ebay and we still have a manual safety P90 around here somewhere...

Yes, I did that exact thing with a P90 I have. Just swap slides and its good to go.

[JonInWA]

Thanks so much, Jon!

Really appreciate the kind words. It definitely makes me feel good to have your seal of approval... because you know about as much about P-Series guns as anyone I've come across.

As the review intimates, I didn't expect to be so taken and impressed with the P89. No, it's not perfect, but anything short of "Excellent" feels like I'm underselling it--regardless of the price or any other considerations. If the Beretta 92 and the Sig P226 are "quintessential" wondernines... so must be the P89.

Also, thanks for those nuggets of wisdom. I recall reading in one of your threads (likely this one) about the the mag-alignment tweak. That seems fairly significant as far as feeding reliability. I plan to go back and add these updates to the written review.

In any case, here's a link to the writeup, if anyone's interested (YouTube review is also embedded, therein)...

https://hipstertactical.com/blog/ruger-p89-review-for-what-it-isnt

Thanks again, Jon!

Matt, I just watched your YouTube video; it was flat out excellent-Well done! Definitely worth a watch.

Best, Jon

[MattyD380]

Matt, I just watched your YouTube video; it was flat out excellent-Well done! Definitely worth a watch.

Best, Jon

Thanks so much, Jon! Really appreciate you watching and the endorsement.

That video is doing really well in terms of views/watch time. It's interesting how many people--apparently--have an affinity for these guns. There are sooo many comments where people talk about their long history of depending on P-Series pistols. My PX4 Compact video has been carrying my channel in terms of views, subscriptions, etc. But this P89 vid is hot on its heels.

Thanks again!

[JonInWA]

As we've concurrently noted, it's almost as if Ruger was a victim of its own marketing back in the day. The P85/P89 (and, for that matter, pretty much the entire subsequent P-Series guns) were marketed as a sort of latter-day volkspistole, less expensive than their competition. That casting required proportional larger components for strength (combined with William Ruger's predilection to make things at least twice as strong as they needed to be for organizational forecasted lifespans) meant that the guns were larger in some aspects-but their engineering and design ameliorated a significant portion of that (such as the dished in grip panel insertions in the receiver frame, and the redesigned safety/decocker and slide release levers). Rugers pricing and market positioning may have moved a lot of guns, but also reinforced a prejudiced view of them as a second-rate product... Ironically, there was a strong rumor in the industry that Glocks only cost $70 or less to produce but were deliberately priced comparably (or only relatively slightly below) their competition.

Intrinsically, the P89s are a very. very good gun. They were significantly enhanced even further at least two points during their manufacturing cycle. I too had a Walther P88, a second generation product improved one-and other than arguably slightly better ultimate accuracy, the P89 was a better gun in my opinion in almost all operational aspects.

I like also the DA triggerpull and DA/SA transition of the P89. It isn't often talked about, but in my experience the Ruger's have an excellent DA/SA. In actual use, the DA/SA transition is not difficult to master.

Best, Jon

[MattyD380]

Rugers pricing and market positioning may have moved a lot of guns, but also reinforced a prejudiced view of them as a second-rate product...

Well said. I think that pretty much crystallizes the perspective gun culture took on the P Series guns.

In fairness, I wasn't immune; I just sort of assumed that Ruger guns weren't as good as Berettas and Sigs (for instance). Because that's what gun zeitgeist says you should think.

Now, per the review, I still think the Beretta 92 and the Sig do some things better than the P89. But the point is: the P89 is a full-fledged military-grade wondernine. And it's somewhat fortunate that its identity in the market didn't come to fully reflect that reality.

But hey... at least I was able to buy one for $360 :)

Thanks again, Jon.

[JonInWA]

As I’ve discussed previously, the venerable Ruger P89 is a long time favorite defensive pistol of mine. However, my grip selections have been an evolution over time. Since getting mine, it’s sequentially had:
1. The OEM GE Xenoy polycarbonate grips, developed specifically for Ruger, with horizontal grooving resembling a wartime German P38’s Bakelite grips;
https://i.imgur.com/2iqbtukh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NA0zFQbh.jpg

2. A set of Craig Spegel designed Uncle Mike’s rubber grips;
3. A set of Hogue rubber finger groove grips;
https://www.hogueinc.com/ruger-p85-p91-rubber-grip-with-finger-grooves-black


4. A set of Ruger Xenoy P93/P94 grips, with the left grip plate slightly modified to fit the P89,
https://i.imgur.com/XFMnirKh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GEilOBlh.jpg

and now,
5. The original OEM Xenoy grips to which David Barnes applied his VCD stippling texturing to.
https://i.imgur.com/j4AFlp0h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dOVCKcNh.jpg

Ever since Todd Green had David provide a set of his VCD grips to his custom 1911 project gun (and then raved about them for the exceptional control they provided, along with a simultaneously applied fluorescent orange painted front sight), I’ve been a huge fan myself, and he’s made numerous grips for my 1911’s, and High Power.

http://www.vcdgrips.com/

Recently, as I was taking a hard look at the P89, I realized that while the Xenoy P93/P94 polymid textured grip plates were an improvement over the OEM Ruger Xenoy grips, and more ergonomic/less bulky than the Hogue rubber finger groove grips, I thought that “VCD’ing” the originals might yield some exceptionally desirable results (and for any following, the Craig Spegel/Uncle Mike’s have long been out of print, and I don’t recommend them anyhow, as I found that the runner retention tabs at the grip top would significantly deteriorate over time due to exposure to cleaning/lubrication solvents, and the grips would then unacceptably slop in the receiver).

Previously, in a previous attempt to achieve a greater amount of grippiness, I’d had my local gunsmith, C.a.R. in Kent WA bead blast them, which imparted a marginal improvement in grippiness (and a nice matte/flat finish), but the grip was only very marginally improved. The rear of the left grip plate’s tang was slightly, but irritatingly a bit protrusive, which I resolved through careful filing and sanding, but then I just removed the grips and stored them in the P89’s case, moving on to the Hogue finger groove rubber grips.

I must say that I waited with considerable anticipation for David’s finished work on these. While the VCD process is all about getting the best operational grip and shooter grip interface with the grip and gun and not at all about aesthetics, for some reason the Ruger Xenoy “VCD’d” grips on the P89 just look, well, right, at least to me for a hard use duty/defensive semi-automatic pistol.
David did warn me that the application of the VCD process had imparted a slight amount of warpage to the grip bottoms, and that he hoped that screwing them in place would resolve it. P89 grips are secured via tabs interlocking with the receiver frame at the top of the grip plates, and by a Luger-like single large screw at the bottom. Just screwing the grips provided an operationally effective solution, but the grip splay at the grip bottoms was irritating to me, and when gripping you could audibly hear and feel the slight plate movement in hand .

I determined that a solution might be to apply greater pressure on the plates at the bottom at the screw attachment point by using rubber O-rings to apply more direct pressure to the grip plate bottoms, forcing them into flush fitting conformance with their receiver recess. I used 2 O rings per screw; a smaller Challis one (to help preclude screws from unscrewing and backing out under recoil vibrations) and a larger one (primarily to apply screw pressure directly on the grip plates to effect force fitting the warped grip plate bottoms in the receiver, They did, but I then found that the grip plate interiors protruded just a bit too much in the receiver well, inhibiting magazine extraction, making it difficult to even pull the magazines out.
https://i.imgur.com/3ssCujbh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5VH4tPUh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/l8LN4W4h.jpg

My solution, after carefully examining the magazines, magazine fit, magwell dimensions, and the grip fit was to very carefully file down the bottoms of the inner interior portion of the grip plate bottoms and the grip plate rub strakes. While a bit time consuming, moving slowly and frequently checking magazine insertion and extraction, I ended up with magazines that were smoothly and easily loaded into the receiver, and then dropped free when empty (The P89’s magazine tube apparently slightly expands when loaded up, so you have to check for a preferential magazine ejection fit); on mine, when ejecting a full or partially expended magazine, it will partially eject, needing me to grasp it to complete the magazine extraction, but an empty magazine easily falls free-I prefer this combination to facilitate tactical reloads so that the partial magazine ejection facilitated me easily grabbing the partially ejected magazine and stowing it, instead of it being forcefully booted into the ground. A sidenote is that historically this was why many military pistols through WW2 preferred butt heel magazine releases, to preclude magazine losses in the field as their replacement in the supply chain was problematic. The butt heel release persisted through the 1970’s, particularly on German pistols, such as the SIG P220, Walther P5 and HK P7. This partial ejection is what I prefer for performing an IDPA tactical reload, not having to scramble to catch the ejecting magazine or chase around for it on the ground).

https://i.imgur.com/24uCKP1h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nT3tnW6h.jpg

The final improvement I added was to trip and apply a piece of VZ black front strap grip tape (which is a preconfigured segment of 3M Safety Walk tape) to the P89’s front strap; given the grippiness provided by the VCD process to the grip plates , it was probably ergonomically unnecessary, but we’ll see how it does; it’s certainly easy to remove if desired. I used my wife’s hair dryer to heat the tape to snug into the curves of the P89’s front strap. Aesthetically, it nicely blends with the VCD’d grip plate texturing.
https://i.imgur.com/ljKtbc3h.jpg

So, I’m exceptionally pleased with the application of the VCD texturing to the OEM grips. David told me that the Xenoy took well to his process, and I certainly recommend it. It also won’t break the bank; David’s price for a customer supplied set of grips is only $30, including shipping. That’s a huge bargain, in my opinion, enabling one to transform a durable, but somewhat slippery OEM grips into a superbly textured and grippable grips, suitable for any shooting environment, venue, or weather condition. If you disposed of your originals, they’re easily and inexpensively obtained from the usual gun parts suppliers and eBay.

William Ruger spent a not inconsiderable amount of time designing the OEM grips for the P85/P89 in terms of both their shape and material composition. Over time, Ruger subtly modified them by dishing them slightly more in during the P85/P89 production cycle. The VCD texturing not adds to their effectiveness while preserving their desirable features, but is a very inexpensive product improvement. However, just be aware that a bit of time may be needed to achieve the best possible fit in your P85/P89.

Best, Jon

[Chuck Whitlock]

That's pretty cool!

[Guerrero]

^^^^^ This is the kind of stuff I love about Pistol Forum.

[JonInWA]

And another view...

https://i.imgur.com/LW84fYl.jpg

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

https://i.imgur.com/CPW7NLdh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/9jwiHThh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5rFYZzeh.jpg

Best, Jon

[lphilpot]

This was an excellent read. Glad I'm not the only P-series owner! :) (I'm the only one I personally / locally know, however.)

I got mine from a pawn shop way back in 1991, with no idea what I was buying. I shot it for a while and subsequently for various reasons got away from shooting for quite a while. But I'm back and I still shoot my -- now MKIIR -- P85 regularly. I added Hogue grips and a bit of Talon tape on the backstrap and slide, which helps.

https://i.imgur.com/7dmgWs5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/iJFO0e4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/dJUPgru.jpg

I also have a Mark II Government Target Model, which is a blast. And, I'm planning on joining the 1911 brotherhood before too long. Life is good. :D

[Singh]

The P89 is a solid gun; accurate, reliable, tough. The shooting characteristics for me aren't as smooth as say as similar guns from Beretta/CZ/Sig, but the P89 is still a very respectable gun.

I was very fond of the P89DC; perfect setup for a DA/SA pistol.

[TheNewbie]

Ruger should replace the American pistol line with an updated polymer TDA line.

[Noah]

One of my first pistols was a P95 as a teen in the early 2010s. It was a great gun, my brother and I didn’t appreciate it enough at the time. I liked it since it mimicked the manual of arms of an M9.

As to Ruger dumping the American for an updated P95… that would be awesome but won’t happen

[MattyD380]

Those look really interesting, Jon. Kind of a fusion of new tactical innovation and old-school dependability. Seems like the circular pattern would offer grippiness without discomfort.

Did you ever get a chance to try Hogue's G10 grips for the P-Series?

https://www.opticsplanet.com/hogue-ruger-p85-p91-piranha-grip-g-10.html

Looks like they've been discontinued, unfortunately. Though I'm sure a pair will come across eBay, at some point. Generally speaking, I like Hogue's G10 grips--the Piranha texture is great. But they tend to only be available with flat sides and no palm swell/contour. Looks like it's the same deal with these.

I've been pretty happy with the Hogue rubber grips on my P89. Granted, I have no frame of reference for other options.

132870

[lee n. field]

Those look really interesting, Jon. Kind of a fusion of new tactical innovation and old-school dependability. Seems like the circular pattern would offer grippiness without discomfort.

Did you ever get a chance to try Hogue's G10 grips for the P-Series?

https://www.opticsplanet.com/hogue-ruger-p85-p91-piranha-grip-g-10.html

Looks like they've been discontinued, unfortunately.


Still listed on Hogue's website. https://www.hogueinc.com/grips/ruger/p85-p89-p90-p91/overmolded-rubber-grips Also they have wood grips.

I have a P90 with the Uncle Mike's rubber grip. I sometimes contemplate trying to find a modern concealment holster for that, and carrying it. That's pretty low priority for me, though.


Though I'm sure a pair will come across eBay, at some point. Generally speaking, I like Hogue's G10 grips--the Piranha texture is great. But they tend to only be available with flat sides and no palm swell/contour. Looks like it's the same deal with these.

I've been pretty happy with the Hogue rubber grips on my P89. Granted, I have no frame of reference for other options.

[JonInWA]

Still listed on Hogue's website. https://www.hogueinc.com/grips/ruger/p85-p89-p90-p91/overmolded-rubber-grips Also they have wood grips.

I have a P90 with the Uncle Mike's rubber grip. I sometimes contemplate trying to find a modern concealment holster for that, and carrying it. That's pretty low priority for me, though.

The P90's a superb gun. Craig Spegel did a great job designing the rubber/santoprene grips for Uncle Mikes back in the day, but the material used is subject to degrading over time; apparently exposure to solvents or lubricants materially degrades the rubber, and the retaining tabs at the top of the grips deteriorate and lose their grip with the receiver, so the grip ends up slopping around, unfortunately.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Those look really interesting, Jon. Kind of a fusion of new tactical innovation and old-school dependability. Seems like the circular pattern would offer grippiness without discomfort.

Did you ever get a chance to try Hogue's G10 grips for the P-Series?

https://www.opticsplanet.com/hogue-ruger-p85-p91-piranha-grip-g-10.html

Looks like they've been discontinued, unfortunately. Though I'm sure a pair will come across eBay, at some point. Generally speaking, I like Hogue's G10 grips--the Piranha texture is great. But they tend to only be available with flat sides and no palm swell/contour. Looks like it's the same deal with these.

I've been pretty happy with the Hogue rubber grips on my P89. Granted, I have no frame of reference for other options.

132870

I've got Hogue G10's for both my High Power and 1911. They're quite good, but in G10 I prefer VZ Grips. The Hogue rubber fingergroove grips are excellent, but I prefer the OEM with the VCD treatment, or the modified P93/94 grips, as they're slimmer and a bit more ergonomic.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Those look really interesting, Jon. Kind of a fusion of new tactical innovation and old-school dependability. Seems like the circular pattern would offer grippiness without discomfort.

Did you ever get a chance to try Hogue's G10 grips for the P-Series?

https://www.opticsplanet.com/hogue-ruger-p85-p91-piranha-grip-g-10.html

Looks like they've been discontinued, unfortunately. Though I'm sure a pair will come across eBay, at some point. Generally speaking, I like Hogue's G10 grips--the Piranha texture is great. But they tend to only be available with flat sides and no palm swell/contour. Looks like it's the same deal with these.

I've been pretty happy with the Hogue rubber grips on my P89. Granted, I have no frame of reference for other options.

132870

Hogue G10 grips will likely run between $75 - $110, if they're available. Their wood grips, especially checkered are fairly expensive as well. running between $90 - $130. From a purely operational efficiency and ergonomic standpoint, my thoughts are that the best results are to be found with Xenoy, G10 and rubber.

If you're on any sort of a budget, that'll put Xenoy and rubber at the forefront. My thought is that the OEM Xenoy gives you the benefit of durability and ergonomics (especially one that Ruger thinned the footprint {well, handprint...}t by subtly dishing in as a manufacturing running change during the P85/P89 production cycle). Application of the VCD texturing preserves these essential good qualities, while significantly adding effective grippability-as does the judicious application of suitable grip tape on the front and back straps.

Arguably, they somewhat modernize (or update) the appearance, too, although that's more a question of aesthetics.

The least expensive route is to go with the OEM Xenoy without modifications, then the Hogue rubber finger groove grip, and then the OWM Xenoy with the VCD application for an additional $30. Other than for aesthetics, I think that going the hardwood route provides too little juice for the squeeze, and, similarly, I think ergonomically and value-wise you're better off going with either the VCD'ized OEM Xenoy grip or the Hogue finger groove rubber. VZ/3M grip tape, if desired, is a massive additional $7.

The underlying question is this: Is a P89 worth the effort; is it still a viable defensive pistol? My, and probably Matty's thoughts are a resounding "yes." If you accept the value of a DA/SA (or relatively rare DAO variant), then it depends on what your needs, inclinations and budgets are to improve and somewhat modernize the platform.

Also, in fairness, if you go the Xenoy/VCD route, be aware that some hand fitting with simple tools will likely be needed to achieve the best fit, at least aesthetically (operationally, they'll be good to go as the come, but with some grip splay due to the slight warpage inherent to the VCD process that can be easily remedied if desired). You could have a gunsmith address and fit, but it's really easily addressed with common files, rubber O rings and patience by users themselves.

Yesterday's square range testing went well, and I'll be finishing my road testing by running the P89 in an IDPA match on the 17th of the month, and possibly in a subsequent Classifier.

Best, Jon

[TheNewbie]

Jon you mentioned it before, but why are you not a fan of the P95?

I hope I’m remembering that part correctly.

[JonInWA]

Jon you mentioned it before, but why are you not a fan of the P95?

I hope I’m remembering that part correctly.

Fair question. I'm not in the least inferring that the P95 is a "bad" gun, it's just that the earlier P85/P89 are likely to be at least slightly more durable and over-built than the subsequent models. A former Ruger project engineer that I'd had lengthy correspondence with over the years preferred the P85/P89. I have not personally or anecdotally heard of any pitfalls inherent to the P95, and it underwent some form of testing presumably for the US Army's Tank and Automotive Command's decision to purchase and issue to Iraqi/Afghanistani police/troops, and I've heard of no post issue issues. Ergonomically (and aesthetically) in a P95, I'd suggest seeking the later production variants, with their improved receivers.

The P-Series guns that I'd be wary of are the .40 caliber P91 and early P944s with the swinging link system as opposed to the camblock recoil management system; the camblock is MUCH preferred for handling the .40 cartridges for any sort of longevity is my understanding. I think in 9mm the P93 and P94's are likely to be excellent as well (but I personally still prefer the P89).

There were problems with early P97 slide releases, and some of the .45 caliber subsequent P-Series Rugers; my strong advice is if you want a .45 ACP Ruger, simply get a P90; it's an excellent gun, with all the advantages and reputation inherent to the P89.

Best, Jon

[lphilpot]

I've been pretty happy with the Hogue rubber grips on my P89. Granted, I have no frame of reference for other options.

Those are my feelings as well. The Hogue grips are better for me than the originals, but there's probably better out there. I have long-ish fingers, but the P85 grip still feels too large for my hands. I have no way to quantify that, however, other than (e.g.) a single stack 1911 feels much better in my hand. My accuracy isn't such that I can definitely say X is better than Y absolutely -- too much personal variation. :) But a smaller grip feels better to me. That being said, I still like my old chunky girl.

[JonInWA]

I've used one of the Hogue rubber grips for years-it's a good grip. Ruger even offered them on some of the P-Series as the OEM grip, calling it the CustomGrip, with the Ruger eagle logo molded into it. I wouldn't hesitate to use or recommend it again, but personally I've found that the VCD'd OEM Xenoy or the slightly modified Xenoy P93/P94 grips to be superior, diue to their being less bulky, and I prefer the VZ 3M grip tape to the Hogue finger grooves (which are effective, but again bulk up the front strap).

But that's me; YMMV.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Well, on Saturday I campaigned the P89 with the newly upgraded OEM grips with their VCD stippling treatment and the VZ frontstrap/backstrap grip tape in a Tier 1 IDPA match; 7 stages, 126 round minimum rounds required (all stages were Unlimited, but I took relatively few additional shots throughout the match; I probably expended around 150 or less rounds overall).

https://i.imgur.com/77gXWGYh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LW84fYlh.jpg

I ended up having one of my best matches ever, particularly accuracy-wise, with only 15 points down for the entire match, and 10 of those were accrued when in a spectacular case of ammunition mis-management I ran dry when facing a drop-turner target; by the time I finished my reload the target had disappeared before I could get a shot off on it…

The P89 ran spectacularly throughout, using High Desert Cartridge Company’s 115 gr TMJ remanufactured 9mm ball. Cited as 1135 fps, it seemed to be in use a bit spicier, with a bit more of a report and some muzzle flame, but ejection was consistent and felt recoil negligible. There were absolutely zero malfunctions throughout the match. Magazines used were Ruger/MecGar 10 round magazines throughout the match; since Washington state has become a magazine capacity limitation state, while I have a decent stock of the OEM 15 round Ruger stainless steel magazines, I’m preserving those for EDC and actual defensive use, using the 10 rounders for competition, training and practice; there were no issues with any of the magazines used.

Managing the DA first shot with the DA/SA P89 was a non-issue throughout; my P89 has a very smooth rolling DA triggerpull, with a fairly crisp break, and a relatively short reset. Single action is very nice as well, and through practice, I had no issues with either the longer, heavier DA pull or the DA/SA transition. Shooting my DAO Beretta 92D heavily this year has doubtlessly provided some nice DA triggerpull benefits.

I also decided to get an old school holster to run the match with; I found a somewhat classic Bianchi Accumold Cruiser thumbsnap OWB heavy duty nylon law enforcement holster. Apparently they are still available new, listed in the Safariland catalog for $102.00. Law enforcement suppliers have them listed in the $80.00 vicinity, but they’re more pragmatically easily available on eBay and similar (especially for individual, rather than organizational orders) hugely discounted; I obtained mine brand new from an established and well vetted eBay seller for….$6.00…, still on its display card. I assume that it is was NOS that had been languishing for some time, possibly obtained from a gunshop going out of business.

https://i.imgur.com/JRE0r75h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3AfVnvOh.jpg



The holster is orientated for use in various similarly-sized platforms, facilitated by an adjustable retention strap. The inner portion of the retention strap fits into the molded belt loop housing and is retained by Velcro on the strap and in the housing. It was not a good solution. First, the inner strap was too short, giving a tenuous at best Velcro grip, resulting in the inner portion of the retention strap usually separating from the holster and flying off on draw. My solution was to carefully adjust for the P89, mark the strap, and then secure in position permanently with Locktite Super Glue, and allow to cure for a full 24 hours. Problem solved (and I found the retention strap as positioned also worked nicely with my Glock 17).

https://i.imgur.com/RjEws3zh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/77PjR0Lh.jpg



The holster really is a duty holster, with its heavy construction protecting the gun from the bangs and impacts encountered in duty use. It is a relatively high riding holster, splaying out significantly from the shooter’s body to aid in draw, particularly when carried in conjunction with a duty jacket on a duty belt. I found that for on belt stability, a 1.75” belt at a minimum is mandatory. The belt loop housing also allows for some cant movement, making in-vehicle or chair seating a bit more comfortable, but still allowing for an immediate and unencumbered draw. The thumbsnap does adequately secure the gun in the holster body, but this is not a holster suitable for hard-core down and dirty duty use, as the thumbsnap is really more orientated towards keeping the gun secure from accidently falling out as opposed to being a truly secure retention holster-in fact, a hard draw without user thumbsnap deactivation will break the thumbsnap gripper open; not ideal when wrestling with an opponent whose intention is to grab your gun. Positioning the holster immediately behind a pants belt loop aids in holster stability as well.

https://i.imgur.com/A6E6FoXh.jpg

As modified, the holster worked quite well in the match; thumbsnap deactivation was easily effected as part of the draw process, and my draw speed was uninhibited . While reholstering could be done one-handed, in reality more often than not I found two-handed holstering desirable (while in all fairness not strictly necessary), both to sweep the thumbstrap straps out of the way and to manipulate and secure the thumbsnap’s gripper when the gun was holstered. The Cruiser incarnation of Bianchi’s venerable Accumold holster incorporates some 50% more outer material for greater holster body protectiveness, and a thumbsnap securing method (as opposed to just a thumb strap grippered on the front side of the holster body).

My conclusion is that the Bianchi Cruiser is a viable, but somewhat obscelescent OWB holster, probably most ideal as a woods or hiking holster. In today’s market, I’d consider $30 or less to be a fair price-particularly given the realization that you’re probably going to have to do some remedial work to adequately secure the inner thumbstrap to make it suitable for actual use. The amount of outward splay makes for a great positioning for draw access, but concurrently significantly constrains its viability as a concealed carry holster, except with a form concealing bulky vest, jacket or coat. It’s really set up for use, as mentioned before, for a law enforcement jacket with a cut-out or opening for the holster to protrude through. Other than the flimsy inner thumbstrap Velcro method of securing the inner strap to the holster body, it’s a very well made and presumably quite durable and protective holster.

So-where do I stand? Well, the P89 has always been an exceptionally and surprisingly ergonomic gun for me, especially in my late production, product improvement variant. Triggerpulls and DA/SA transitions are very easily competently mastered, and reliability and durability are exceptionally high. Field stripping, cleaning, lubricating is pretty much all the maintenance I’ve ever needed, although I do have an OEM recoil spring guide and extractor in my case for it if ever needed. I’m very satisfied with the VCD-moddded OEM Xenoy grips, which I think ergonomically gets the maximum derivable potential (at least for me) from the platform. While some users have criticized the OEM white 3-dot sights as being on the small side, I certainly have no complaints whatsoever with them, both in terms of sight acquisitions, alignment, and achievable accuracy. Gun ergonomics and sights provide for a very natural draw, sight acquisition and firing. The somewhat unique Ruger “push forward” magazine release works well with me, as does the OEM slide release.

https://i.imgur.com/F9b9MBih.jpg

For magazines, be they 10 or 15 rounders I only use and recommend OEM Ruger or MecGar ones; MecGar is the OEM magazine producer anyhow, and their proprietary P89 magazines are available in blued or nickel variations; the Rugers are mostly stainless steel, but occasionally blued ones are apparently available. The MecGars offer an easier magazine disassembly and are usually less expensive-unless you really feel compelled to have the Ruger eagle logo on the basepad, I’d simply go with the MecGars. Operationally, they’re the same regardless.

My primary holster is a veteran Blade-Tech IWB that they made for me years ago, so it has thicker kydex, which I prefer. I’ve replaced the rubber belt loop straps once, due to inevitable rubber deterioration; occasionally oiling the rubber will help as a preservative, but they’re easy and inexpensive to replace if needed.

https://i.imgur.com/RstGq4rh.jpg

I also have a minimalist The Wilderness Zip Slide, a bikini OWB belt slide holster that works quite nicely, and a Bianchi M12/UM 84 modular flap holster and the previously discussed Bianchi 7105 Accumold Cruiser; all of these are very good in use in various venues, with my usual “go-to” one being the Blade Tech IWB.

https://i.imgur.com/oGzY36Yh.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/D8HfBFch.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0EUCka4h.jpg

Additionally, I have a Tactical Tailor Low Profile ambidextrous OWB holster, which is surprisingly viable for a "universal" type holster; I have two of them, and this one, which is the slightly larger of the two, fits the P89 to a "T." While it comes with adjustable retention straps, I normally remove them (they're Velcro secured within a fabric tunnel piece on both sides) for ease of draw and re-holstering, but I'd use them if mountain biking/ATV'ing, etc. to secure the gun. The cloth reinforcement band on the holster mouth actually forms to the gun in use, and one-handed reholstering is easily accomplished.

https://i.imgur.com/tGiQ741h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JBAkGx4h.jpg

All of this has really reinforced my trust in the efficacy of my P89. They are still readily available and affordable on the secondary market. The inexpensive mods I made help modernize and improve an already good platform that is an exceptionally well designed and manufactured duty pistol-and one that is eminently capable of performing very successfully in various roles and venues.

For any interested, there's currently one on Gunbroker as I'm writing that may well be one of the product improved ones; the date/serial sequence is promising, as is the new Prescott rollmark banner on the right side of the slide:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1105437744

Best, Jon