Do you still need a couple stocking stuffers? Check out the Norseman Creative Store for books and stickers! Use the promo code “holiday” for a discount at checkout!
In the long ago, when I first started getting interested in firearms, I was petitioning hard to get a pistol for Christmas. This was only a few years after the 2004 sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and the market hadn’t quite recovered from “Pre-Ban” prices for more common pistols and their magazines. I remember seeing Pre-Ban Mini-14 and AR-15 magazines in the Cabela’s printed Christmas Catalog for upwards of $50-$100 each, old Beretta magazines for $50-60, and that was a big ask for a teenager hinting and begging for his first pistol.
Contained in the pages of that very same Cabela’s catalog was an inexpensive, if somewhat ugly pistol. Packed with safety features like a heavy trigger and dual safety levers, and being sold with the ban-era 10 round magazines, it was the perfect starter pistol, a perfect gift pistol! Especially since I promised my parents that they wouldn’t have to buy me any other gifts for Christmas that year, or my birthday and Christmas the following year. Two full gift-less years was where I drew the line, the pistol wasn’t that expensive after all.
Whether my parents didn’t get the hint or were simply uneasy about allowing a teenage boy unfettered access to a 9mm pistol, I never did get that pistol. Until 15 more years went by, when I was perusing a collection of used firearms. I had gone to look at a few other firearms for other projects, but lo and behold, nestled in the factory original case was a Ruger P89.
The Ruger P89 was the second evolution of Ruger’s “P Series” of pistols, double action/single action “wonder nines” that were intended to compete in the 1980’s U.S. Army trials for a new pistol that the Beretta M9 won. The first generation, the P85 wasn’t completed in time, but Ruger shoved it into the civilian market for roughly $100 less than the nearest competitor.
In 1989, Ruger released the P89, which remained at a low price point, and was one of the most prolific pistols of its time. It was still in production in 2009, well after its replacement, the P95 had been introduced. Ruger also introduced .45 ACP and .40 S&W versions of their P Series pistol, but the 9mm was the most common by far.
So now the good, the bad, and the ugly. Let’s start with ugly. The sample that I picked up is in excellent shape with some holster wear, but it would be dishonest to call the gun beautiful or elegant. It’s an aluminum, plastic, and carbon steel mass that is a bit strange to behold. To paraphrase Dugan Ashley of CarniKon, firearm beauty is a circle, where something can be so ugly it somehow comes back around to beautiful.
The P89 falls just short of coming full circle. Especially when compared to its contemporaries like the Smith & Wesson 2nd and 3rd Generation semi autos, which are slimmer and more elegant, a Beretta M9/92FS, which is thicc but beautiful. The Ruger P Series as a whole is big, chunky, and ugly, and the P89 is well within this familial mold.
I would have to say that the bad revolves around trigger pull and overall size of the handgun. Ruger’s founder allegedly claimed that “no honest man needs a pistol smaller than a canned ham.” With that attitude in mind, it’s easy to understand why the P89 is so chonky. To be completely fair, the grip is not all that large, and the plastic grip panels inlaid in the aluminum frame are quite comfortable.
All of the chonkiness is contained in the slide, which sports safety levers on both sides and low profile, 3-dot “combat sights” that are relatively familiar to even more modern pistols. The P89 also has a relatively high bore height (the height of the barrel over your firing hand), and combined with the heavy slide, the pistol has a relatively strong recoil impulse for an all metal 9mm pistol. By no means is it unmanageable, as the weight does help keep the recoil under control.
As for the trigger in the P89, it is a bit heavy. One of the common complaints I have heard against the M9 was that the Beretta had a heavy first round (double action) trigger pull. The P89’s trigger, by comparison, is a feat of strength. Not only is it heavier than the Beretta M9, a CZ75, S&W 645, and several revolvers I “tested” (read: dry-fired repeatedly to get a general feel. Get that trigger scale malarky out of my face.), but the trigger feels like it sits further forward, increasing the effort required to pull the trigger back in double action.
This isn’t to say that the trigger is bad, its just heavy. The actual pull is pretty smooth and consistent, which means that it can be mastered with practice. Which is a consistent theme with all firearms. One of the things that the P89 has going for it is that it still has some aftermarket support. Ruger still sells magazines for it, as does Mec-Gar, and finding holsters online wasn’t too hard either although the selection isn’t broad.
So why would anyone want a chonky, heavy pistol with a long, heavy double action trigger pull? Well, the gun works, and when they were new they cost between $200 and $300, and if it hadn’t been for the Coronapocalypse gun buying craze, the P89 would still cost less than $300 for a used one in good condition today. Given the Coronapocalypse, you would be more likely to find them right around $400. If you are financially challenged, or you’re a teenager trying to convince your parents to buy one for your birthday/Christmas(x2) then its a good choice.
Additionally, the Ruger P89 sports ambidextrous controls, one of the first mass produced, commercially available pistols to do so. While many of its contemporaries had ambidextrous safety levers, such as on the Beretta 92 or S&W Semi Autos, very few of them had truly ambidextrous magazine releases. Very few modern pistols have completely ambidextrous controls, so the P89 is still a good choice for lefties. The magazine release on the P89 is a bit awkward to me, as it must be pushed forward to drop the magazine, rather than side to the side with a traditional magazine release button.
I took the P89 to the range over my lunch break to see how it shot. This was my first range trip with the pistol, and I was excited to get a feel for my newfound prize. Given the state of finding ammunition these days, I only shot 100 rounds through it, so this was not a stringent test by any means. I also brought a Beretta M9 and a S&W 645 to compare to the P89, but these aren’t exactly fair comparisons. For one thing, I have a lot of time running the Beretta M9, and am quite fond of it, which makes me biased. For another, the 645 is .45 ACP, but I wanted to shoot it so I did.
Since I was trying to keep the ammo count low, and I was working my way through a training class, I used a USCCA level 1 Qualification as a benchmark. Its not the craziest drill, nor is it super challenging, but it did give a good initial impression of the P89. The drill is not normally conducted with a draw from a holster, nor is it timed, but I decided to spice things up a bit. The Drill is conducted on a standard IPSC/USPSA silhouette target and goes as follows:
- From 3 Yards: Draw and fire 10 rounds center mass
- From 5 Yards: Draw and fire 10 rounds center mass
- From 7 Yards: Draw and fire 10 rounds center mass
- From 10 Yards: Draw and fire 10 rounds center mass
- From 15 Yards: Draw and fire 10 rounds center mass
Passing is 35 out of 50 rounds (70%) in the center circle. Not the most complex drill, but it does give a good benchmark. I ran the drill twice with each pistol, and the results are below. Scores are center mass hits out of fifty, with the Points Per Time (PPT) being the total score out of fifty divided by the total number of seconds. Shots that landed outside of the center mass “A Zone” of a standard IPSC target count as a “Zero.”
| Pistol | Ruger P89 | Beretta M9 | S&W 645 | |||
| Attempt | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 Yard | 4.49 | 3.80 | 3.68 | 3.42 | 3.84 | 4.87 |
| 5 Yard | 4.53 | 4.02 | 4.04 | 4.79 | 4.68 | 7.52 |
| 7 Yard | 7.56 | 4.96 | 5.76 | 5.60 | 6.40 | 8.00 |
| 10 Yard | 8.21 | 6.12 | 6.24 | 7.49 | 7.73 | 10.78 |
| 15 Yard | 11.28 | 8.11 | 7.58 | 7.63 | 9.43 | 10.78 |
| Total Time | 36.07 | 27.01 | 27.30 | 28.93 | 32.08 | 41.95 |
| Points | 46 (92%) | 45 (90%) | 45 (90%) | 47.5 (95%) | 36 (72%) | 39 (78%) |
| PPT | 1.28 | 1.67 | 1.65 | 1.64 | 1.12 | 0.93 |
A couple notes about the drill: Drills were shot in the order that they appear in the table. For example, I shot the whole qualification with the P89, then reloaded magazines and attempted it a second time before moving on to the Beretta and then the S&W 645. One of the qualifications with the Beretta had one shot that landed just outside of the center mass target, but it did break the line, so I gave myself a half point for it. For both 9mm pistols I shot 124 Grain Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) from Prvzi Partisan Uzice (PPU), and with the 645 I shot 200 Grain FMJ from Freedom Munitions. I had no ammunition failures, although one of the Freedom Munitions’ .45 ACP had a very light ejection but it did not cause a stoppage.
In short, the P89 performed admirably. I was worried that the long, heavy trigger pull would give me trouble, but it really didn’t seem to matter, although the rounds that pulled low were usually from that first shot in double action. After I figured that out, I was able to push the pistol a little bit more. I actually posted the best PPT in my second attempt with the P89, which surprised me considerably.
Using the P89 in a “production division” of a USPSA/IPSC match with the Vedder Holster’s ProDraw Paddle holster is a completely reasonable course of action, and I was happy with the performance of the pistol and the holster today. Again, this wasn’t that stringent of a test, but I was pleased overall. There were two issues that gave me pause about the P89. The first was that the magazines I purchased more recently were super difficult to load to capacity (10 rounds in the state of Taxachusetts). The good thing was that the P89 came with a magazine loader which helped push the last couple rounds into the magazine. I chalked it up to those magazines being brand new, and the oldest magazine I had for the gun loaded without issue.
The next issue was much more worrisome. My sample of the P89 had an issue with the trigger going “dead” after decocking the pistol prior to holstering (meaning it would pull to the rear without working the hammer and firing the pistol). It threw me off a couple times during the first qualification, and I did figure out a workaround, but it wasn’t a good solution from a safety standpoint. Pointing the P89 in a safe direction, I could gently press the trigger back a millimeter or so, and the trigger springs would engage again and it would be “live.” I don’t know what caused this issue, but if I was to use this particular sort of pistol in any sort of hard use (carrying, competition, space-nazi-zombie hunting), I would need to get it looked at by a gunsmith ASAP. Most likely the pistol is old, the springs are worn out, and it just needs a little TLC.
My performance with the Beretta was about what I expected. I posted the highest score with the M9, and the second and third highest PPT with it as well. I believe part of the reason my splits were a bit slower with the M9 is that I was using a Level 2 retention holster that required me to press a button with my firing thumb to disengage before drawing the pistol. The P89’s holster did not have that, so perhaps that’s the difference. Other than that, not much exciting to report.
The 645, on the other hand, was a bit of a shock for me. In both attempts, the 3, 5, and 7 yard drills resulted in one large, jagged hole center mass of the IPSC target. Some fliers, but I was trying to shoot a bit fast. When I stepped back to 10 and 15 yards, however, the groups completely fell apart. I posted my two worst scores with the 645, and I slowed down to try to bring the score up, but even during the second attempt I dropped most of the 10 yard drill out of center mass. This was disappointing to me, as I know the 645 to be a supremely accurate pistol, but I shot like hot garbage with it that day. I still posted a “qualifying” time, but it was getting a C or C+ grade when the pistol is more than capable of shooting A’s.
Overall, the Ruger P89 performed very well, and I would not hesitate to say that a sample in good condition is still a relevant pistol. While it is not the best pistol available these days and is borderline obsolescent, it is by no means obsolete. I intend to take the P89 to a training conference soon, and will run it through its paces again at a later time. As of right now, I am glad that I finally was able to get my hands on the P89, and I didn’t even have to sacrifice my Christmas presents this year.
