I got my 869 a few weeks ago and was not completely satisfied with it calibration. Sure it is within specs but all that did is expose that the last digit is not very useful. My 6000 count Fluke 115 is always spot on and even the Rigol 832 power supply's built in meter appears to be more accurate. As calibrated from the factory, 869's last digit seems to provide no extra useful info, quite the opposite as it seems to be way off. And I'm not even talking about 500000 mode - the digit after the last digit, which everyone agrees is just noise and is only really useful for quick comparisons (it drifts fairly quickly). I compared numbers from my Keithley 2015, Rigol 832 (when used as power supply), Fluke 115 and 869, sometimes using 832 and sometimes using the ubiquitous 10V precision calibrated reference. 869 would match the others only if you round the result to 3 digits total (e.g. it would be correct as 5.00V but not as 5.000V). I recalibrated the 0V, 5V and 50V range using 10V reference with 0.01% resistor divider and for 50V the 832 verified by Keithley 2015 and now it seems the fourth digit is usable. Otherwise, without calibration, it felt like this meter's extra count was pointless.
It is however really well built and protection inside (fuses, MOVs etc.) seem top notch. But it's also very large, very heavy and looks almost comical with that tiny dial. The dual measurement (e.g. AC and DC at the same time, or AC and Hz) are rather neat too. The ohm measurement is very precise (if I believe the Vishay 0.01% precision on 4 resistor samples I have) and here extra digits seem to be actually useful. Same with capacitance. So compared to a Fluke 115, measuring R and C provides a big step up. But just for voltage, I could have stuck with Fluke and been happy.