Page 33 of 40 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 399

Thread: Hudson H9

  1. #321
    PensFan
    Member
    Quote Originally Posted by Peally View Post
    People still pay thousands for stupid 2011s and modified Tanfos in a futile effort to purchase skill, so price isn't necessarily the issue. Anything can be marketed if it has a niche.
    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.

  2. #322
    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...

  3. #323
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    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).

  4. #324
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    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.

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    I think that's a little unfair to both Kahr and Hudson. I don't think the Hudsons are great business people, but the H9 does appear to work when the parts are in tolerance. If the accusations by the Hudsons against CVMI are true, then chances are the broken guns are broken, because the parts were out of spec.

    Now the business mistake was allowing out of spec parts in the guns out the door to begin with. But that's a business, not engineering mistake.

    And I think it's unfair to characterize Kahr as being unwilling to refine and improve models. Kahr made a smart move by diversifying its holdings by buying companies and licenses, but importantly, has put real effort in elevating the companies they bought (i.e., Auto Ordnance). The AO 1911s and M1 Carbines used to be the laughing stock of 1911s and M1s, but these days both have an enviable reputation for reliability and quality. Kahr has also, intelligently, kept things like the AO line as a niche, as opposed to trying to force their way into markets they couldn't get firm footing in.

    The H9 will always be a niche model, but I suspect, if someone spent the cash and refined it, it could be a very competitive gun in Production with 1911 shooters. If the new owners of the Hudson design get their shit together, they'll re-engineer the gun to run on Glock 17 or Beretta 92 mags. They started with a solid design in the 3rd gen platform, but the Beretta and Glock are more ubiquitous.



    Good thing a bunch of folks decided to chance on that dude Gaston's product...otherwise we might still be viewing the 659 as the epitome of handgun design.
    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.

  6. #326
    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.

  7. #327
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    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.

  8. #328
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    The distributor RSR's computer(dealer access)shows a 500 plus inventory of H9's. One can only guess how many more copies reside in other distributor inventories. Probability is high that CDNN will be blowing them out within a few months. Case study may later provide caveats to other start up companies. One is danger of total dependence on parts vendors. An assumption was that parts would easily go together to make a workable whole. Did the tolerance monster raise its head? Despite Cy's being an engineer, he may have been well served by consulting with firearms engineers. They might have advised a contract whereby the vendor submitted parts to make 300 guns, and evaluation of these would determine future specs. Were skilled techs hired to assemble and evaluate? Were 1/2 million rounds of ammo purchased to test trial guns? I realize that budget restraints existed and have pointed out in a previous post that big companies with money often have similar difficulties.

    In 1983 I went to the Shot Show and spent most of my time talking with the S&W guys. They had two pretty girls there also who were fitters. Always I had liked the Model 39 and asked many questions about its development and manufacture. These were old guys, and they exclaimed that the pistol ran them crazy. Old guys like to talk, and I got an ear full. The two ladies told me that fitters required a bucket of parts for each part and confessed that assembling them was a slow process. Then fitters were paid per unit. They hated the Model 39 which did not respond to the big lead(babbitt)hammer. H9 problems remind me of this conversation.

  9. #329
    Site Supporter Trooper224's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Wichita
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    The distributor RSR's computer(dealer access)shows a 500 plus inventory of H9's. One can only guess how many more copies reside in other distributor inventories. Probability is high that CDNN will be blowing them out within a few months. Case study may later provide caveats to other start up companies. One is danger of total dependence on parts vendors. An assumption was that parts would easily go together to make a workable whole. Did the tolerance monster raise its head? Despite Cy's being an engineer, he may have been well served by consulting with firearms engineers. They might have advised a contract whereby the vendor submitted parts to make 300 guns, and evaluation of these would determine future specs. Were skilled techs hired to assemble and evaluate? Were 1/2 million rounds of ammo purchased to test trial guns? I realize that budget restraints existed and have pointed out in a previous post that big companies with money often have similar difficulties.

    In 1983 I went to the Shot Show and spent most of my time talking with the S&W guys. They had two pretty girls there also who were fitters. Always I had liked the Model 39 and asked many questions about its development and manufacture. These were old guys, and they exclaimed that the pistol ran them crazy. Old guys like to talk, and I got an ear full. The two ladies told me that fitters required a bucket of parts for each part and confessed that assembling them was a slow process. Then fitters were paid per unit. They hated the Model 39 which did not respond to the big lead(babbitt)hammer. H9 problems remind me of this conversation.
    Out of technical curiosity and a fascination with history, I'd like to hear more about the fitting issues with the 39. PM me if you don't want to drift the thread.
    We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......

  10. #330
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper224 View Post
    Out of technical curiosity and a fascination with history, I'd like to hear more about the fitting issues with the 39. PM me if you don't want to drift the thread.
    Extractor issues. No dash models had long extractors that broke easily. Feed ramp was a two step affair promoting jamming. Manual safety would back out. Fitters viewed them as difficult to assemble, hence the bucket of parts comment. They kept reaching into the bucket to find parts that would fit. Some parts shaped in ways that were difficult to file. Illinois State Police was first agency to adopt. Most viewed 39's as unreliable. Mine was ok and loved WW2 corrosive surplus. I didn't know they were screwed up until I read it in a gun magazine. They were, though. I was lucky. I kept it running with 3 in 1 oil and grandpa's axle grease,

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •