I retract my statement.
Fedex just came with my new H9. From the first dozen off the production line according to Hudson.
Am now confirmed Grand Master.
Come at me, Peally.
I retract my statement.
Fedex just came with my new H9. From the first dozen off the production line according to Hudson.
Am now confirmed Grand Master.
Come at me, Peally.
A GM can kick my ass any day, I'm still trying to weasel into M. I bow to you sensei
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
Yeah, but I have not read about anyone doing more than putting a few rounds through the well manicured specimen that was at SHOT.
That's why I was surprised to see InRangeTV give Hudson so much Tube time--they're usually skeptical guys but they are apparently ga-ga over the H9. While Ian and Karl have earned enough of my respect for me to give them the benefit of the doubt, they don't seem to have had much real experience with the H9 either. However, their enthusiasm alone has put my skepticism on hold and I'm eager to see what the H9 actually delivers.
Last edited by ExMachina; 01-25-2017 at 09:53 AM.
From their web site: "From its steel frame, to its straight-pull trigger, to its striker-fired design the H9 will feel instantly familiar with any firearms enthusiasts."
Are these guys Chinese? I couldn't even get Google translate to mangle a sentence that badly.
So question for the experts:
Does the recoil impulse/sensation differ significantly between a Chiappa Rhino and a conventional revolver, assuming equivalent ammunition and handgun weight?
In a semi-auto pistol, the bullet has left the barrel before the barrel unlocks and the slide cycles. The functioning of the slide, extraction, ejection, feeding a new round from the magazine and chambering is a matter of diverting some of the energy from the cartridge firing. Will diverting this energy through a recoil spring assembly relocated 1 inch lower make that much of a difference? The bore axis is a bit lower, but I go back to my Rhino question above.
I guess I'm in a wait and see/shoot mode.
Last edited by RJ; 01-25-2017 at 11:07 AM.
Even if the first few need to be "shot out" and debugged, good. All these new systems/designs/etc need to get shaken out.
In my hierarchy of things:
If the gun is generally reliable, but breaks after X number of rounds > gun is reliable but small parts breakage 86's some tests > gun can't get through a magazine (R51)
I mean, even the Glock M launched a few slides along the way?
When it comes to carrying life saving hardware that has to work on demand immediately, I err on using something far away from the cutting edge.
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.
The latest issue of Recoil (Issue 29) had a good write up on the H9. A couple of things stood out to me in the article..mainly that the prototypes were prone to break the chassis locking lugs around the 1,000 round mark. Hudson engineers stated they were working to revise the design. I'm not sure what specific changes were made but it was interesting to read that. The author stated that recoil management was very good; seemed less "bouncy" than the G34, CZ SP01, XD-M and an M&P Pro they compared the H9 with. The authors did state that the prototype they shot fractured the locking lugs around the last few boxes of ammo they shot for the day.
Tons of info in that article so if you want to know more I recommend picking up that issue of Recoil.
Shoot more, post less...