The normative mean that Ruger designed the P85 series (eventually encompassing the P85, P85 Mk II, and P89) around was in consonance with the JSSAP/DoD specifications of the XM9 and XM10 tests. To the best of my knowledge, the exact specifications for accuracy in these tests has not been made public; the accounts that I've read strongly suggest that 5" at 25 yards was the minimum expectation, with 3"-4" being desirable from a competitive scoring standpoint. Todd Green, a former Beretta employee (and later with SIG-Sauer, and now working a a highly regarded trainer/consultant, see
www.Pistol-Training.com) stated in his Factory Beretta Armorer Class notes that "...each gun is put in a Ransom rest, settled (3-5 shots fired), and accuracy tested. M9 military guns must meet a standard of 8" 10-shot groups at 50m, while law enforcement and commercial guns are tested with 10 shots at 25 yards."
A former engineer involved in the P85/P89 series program has stated that the expected achievable norm of a P85/P89 is 3" at 25 yards, but that there were some deviations from this, particularly in the early P85 series guns, especially if they had the 2-piece welded barrels. Accuracy within the series steadily improved throughout the production cycle, and as a series peaked in the P89s, as Tech4064 graciously quoted me from an earlier thread.
The bottom line is this: You should be able to achieve 3" groups from your P85/P89. If you can't, Ruger had (and presumably still has) a fix for it, involving some massaging of the slide-to-barrel relationship, particularly in the bushing area. You will have the best chance of achieving this "out of the box" with a later-production P89, which incorporates all of the production modifications. These guns are distinguished by the barrel breach rising above the plane of the slide when the gun is in battery.
I have provided Revhigh a copy of the target with the 1" to 1.5" results that I achieved with my personal, very late (August 2007) production P89; I will be happy to provide it to anyone else interested; just PM me with your email address. That stated, I freely conceed that mine is an abberation, where all of the stars were in alignment in production (not that I'm complaining about it).
The P89, to the best of my knowledge, was phased out of production for several reasons: First, it was competing/vampiring sales from the SR9 (and P95), both platforms with which Ruger has a high interest in their success (and both of which I suspect cost far less to manufacture, leading to higher profitability). Second, good as it was/is, the P89 is hardly at the cusp of pistol evolution, from either a user or a manufacturer standpoint. Quite simply, there are pistols with better ergonomics, greater accuracy, and ones that are less expensive to make out there. And, marketplace tastes shift over time.
Even though I don't own one, I think that about the best consumer-available 9mm combat pistol available currently is the HK P30. It has high quality components, and excellent ergonomics, expedited by replaceable grip panel and backstrap inserts allowing an individual shooter to tailor the gun's fit to him/her. It is very expensive-about $800, when discounted from a stocking HK dealer.
My personal preference today is with a Glock G17/19/34-they're literally available at half the price of an HK P30, magazines are inexpensive and easily available, and Glock's aftermarket support is stellar. They work for me, and I index well with them, and can work on them myself when necessary. While an HK P30 might provide some theoretical ergonomic improvements to me over my Glocks, they'd also require me to spend a not insignificant amount of training time and resources to build them into my muscle memory-and I'm perfectly satisfied with the capabilities inherent to my Glocks, and doubtful that going to the HK platform would provide me with anything but a slight improvement in user ergonomics, and I've already adjusted to my Glocks, and prefer to expend my disposable income resources on training. practice, and competitions with what I've got...
Back to the P89. It is still a perfectly viable self-defense weapon. I have no hesitation in carrying (and occassionally competing with it, in IDPA and steel plate competitions) it. I often prefer it as a nightstand gun, given it's DA/SA action, reliability, and my comfort in indexing with it. However, my Glocks are more comfortable to shoot, and are certainly lighter to carry-for me. At the end of the day, I think that most individuals are best served by choosing one primary pistol platform, and practicing/training/competing/and carrying it to achieve the best overall results. A P89 certainly wouldn't be a bad choice for this.
Best, Jon