Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
This should be in a sticky.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This should be in a sticky.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think for yourself. Question authority.
One of the barriers to entry in the gun business is customer adoption. It's a weird fact that a new entrant to the gun world in 2017 has to compete against products engineered when the RMS Titanic was under construction. But it is so,because owning a pistol with that long of a track record lends a warm fuzzy feeling should The Untinkable happen.
Ultimately the Hudson has to deliver a quantifiable & accessible improvement to the shooting experience . History is littered with firearms which were inventively better ,but didn't bring any practical value to the customer. See Bren Ten and so on.
Last edited by GardoneVT; 01-21-2017 at 03:04 PM.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
So should knowing the difference between a FPC and a FCI.
RMOAS: I was at a party not long ago where some guy was declaring that paying taxes was voluntary and that there was no legal duty to pay income taxes. I asked him if he knew the difference between a FPC and a FCI. When he said he didn't know what they were, I suggested that he probably would find out if he took his own advice.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Guns are tools. Lots of people are content with buying tools that they occasionally use from Harbor Freight instead of SnapOn or Matco.
I hope they make it. But when you add in the cost of a few more magazines and holster(s), the number of people who are willing to drop that much into a gun from a start-up company may be a rather small integer.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
There's a development curve with any technology*. You will see leaps and bounds until you hit a certain point. After that, diminishing returns sets in, and everything else is mostly just refinements.
Mechanically, the modern SFA pistol has pretty much the same basic operating mechanism as the 1935 Browning Highpower. The big difference is in materials and production process.
For self loading rifles, the Stoner design from the late 50's has pretty much proved itself best- most competing systems are from the late 40's and older.
A lot of the new gun tech tends toward the gimmick end of things (Hello, Taurus!)
*I'm not an engineer, so there's probably better, more technical language for what I'm trying to express
I'm still not convinced that the shooting characteristics of the 34oz H9 could be any better than any other pistol that has a counterbalance mounted in front of the trigger guard. Shoot a Glock/M&P/Sig with a SF X300 on the rail and I'll bet they shoot just as "flat" as the stock H9.
As has already been detailed in this thread, its not just about weight. Apparently, the positioning of the actual recoil spring has alot to do with the way the gun feels in recoil.
some additional insight.
Yes. I understand fully Hudson's explanation (that has also been echoed here). My point was that by putting all that extra mass down low and in front of the trigger guard, I'm not convinced that they didn't just "engineer" a fancy-sounding counter balance.
Upon thinking about it for a bit,
I think the key potential advantage with this design is the change in location on this critical interface (1911 shown, but this would apply to any short recoil operated handgun) - which is the location of the transmission of force to the frame of the gun.
In other words,
- Round is fired
- Slide begins to rearward travel
- Slide also pushes the front of the recoil spring back
- Recoil spring compresses under above force
- Recoil spring is now transmitting energy from the front of it to the back of it as it compresses (at any moment the front and rear ends of the spring are exerting equal but opposite increasing energy
- Rear of the recoil spring is pushing against frame of gun here (Red Circle)
- Hudson design essentially moves that pushing force downward to around front of trigger guard (Green Circle)
So while the felt recoil effect of the slide mass itself moving rearward would remain the same cet par, the portion of recoil felt as a result of the action against the recoil spring would be moved down, more in line with the hand.
this would be in addition of course to the benefit of having a heaver pistol, especially in regards to the weight of reciprocating, sprung components.
AFAIK there has been no current internal view or explanation available, so while not sure, I dont think there is a counterbalancing system in place.
An expanded "dust cover" area could allow for space for that though, even through a simple lever arm where the rearward moving slide would push forward a forward moving counterweight or dampener of some sort.
v interesting stuff at work here
Last edited by fishing; 01-23-2017 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
