There’s a bit more to this story than either party admits, I can guarantee.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
There’s a bit more to this story than either party admits, I can guarantee.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps I Iack vision and imagination. Even if the H9 functioned ok, I never understood how it could compete against the competition in today's market especially when its cost is considered. Learning their production figures which are or will be published by the feds should make interesting conversation. Then it would be interesting to see how many guns were sold. Possibly sales were so low that they did not sell those made. Much earlier when I was researching the project, they advertised in a local newspaper for a maintenance worker who would also assist with assembly and test firing when he wasn't sweeping and mopping(my terms). At that point, I became unsure about the outcome.
Most 2011's and Tangos, CZ Shadows serve the competition niche which is why they are successful. IMO the H9 is an even smaller niche market which creates a large host of financial and logistical issues. I think he addressed those issues pretty well in his press release. I hope they get sorted out or someone helps them through the rough waters. Having more firearms companies is better than fewer.
I dont think the H9's pricing was out of line. Consider this comparison to another popular full size steel pistol:
H9 street price: $950
CZ Sp01: $650
But to get the CZ to match what the H9 comes with out of the box you need:
Short Reset Kit $75
Tritium front and blacked out rear $125?
Extra mag $25
Total: $875 vs $950. So for another $75 you get something unique and made in the USA, with a nicer SA trigger and modular capability. but of course no DA or manual safety.
Adding a competition hammer to get the SA at the H9s level actually makes the Hudson the cheaper option.
Obviously the comparison between a proven reliable gun with a huge aftermarket and a startup is a bit silly but I think it illustrates the value for the intended market.
Also the first H9 model was the "premium flagship" version, planned future models were going to be cheaper. I beleive the aluminum frame was going to be $100 less.
here's to hoping this gets sorted out in a positive way somehow...
I gotta be honest...I just wanted the H9 to reach the minimum number of units to get on the production list for USPSA. And then I wanted Hudson to release a thumb safety. Would the H9 have cost more up front than a CZ or Tanfo? Yes, but not to get it all tricked out.
If the H9 was 2" @ 25 yard accurate and could run through a stage without a malfunction, I was ready to go. Shooting an STI in Limited in fun, but I wouldn't mind competing in Production. And all I want is a 1911-style thumb safety equipped 9mm striker gun that doesn't make my wrist hurt for days after competition (sorry M&P). :(
Completely agree, @RevolverRob, I thought that the H9 was shaping up to be a strong contender for a competition shooting striker pistol.
I think that as much as Hudson wanted to grow the design, with optics-cut slides, threaded barrels, compensators, thumb safeties, and aluminum frames- those growth items became distractions from sales of the gun.
I was hoping the design would succeed. :(
The only point I was trying to make was that I envision Hudson being sold off to a gun company other than Glock, S&W, Remington, etc. I don't see a major company taking on the challenge of refining a new system.
My intention wasn't to impugn Kahr, but state that a company like Kahk, Kel-Tec, Taurus, etc, who aren't afraid to think outside of the box, will most likely be the one to pick up the ball and run with it.
It is a shame Hudson is having issues. Hopefully they can work them out but it doesn't look good. I always root for the new companies and products as starting a new company or introducing a new product always has risk but when something innovative comes along it can change the direction of the market and future products from other already established companies. Starting a new company and a new product that is pretty different at the same time is a huge undertaking and it looks like it caught up with Hudson.
Glock wasn't the first to make a striker fired handgun, nor the first double stack, nor the first polymer frame. The Glock 17 also wasn't their first product. They just happen to put it all together and still it was a challenge as they entered the market.
Thinking about various features and advancements in handguns and rarely are there a bunch of new features in one gun or those new features done by a brand new company. Striker fire, squeeze cocker, polymer frame, gas delay blow back, modular fire control group, etc... all came from established gun makers and/or were a single feature on a gun when first introduced. A gun that is still up in the air for how it will do is the Archon Type B. It is modular, polymer frame, striker fired, uses a horizontal striker mechanism system and the "AF Speed lock" system that has been used in a gun previously may work out but they too have had problems. Time will tell.
One thing about Glock was that they were going for a government contract which would seem to give you more security than trying to enter a crowded private market.
Most new business ventures fail, as a general rule.