Daniel Defense reviving the Hudson H9?

[Duke]

No comp, no dot, no thanks.


Otherwise kind of cool.


Hope they utilize and existing/proven mag like Wilson and the Walther/edcx9 Tube

[RevolverRob]

No comp, no dot, no thanks.


Otherwise kind of cool.


Hope they utilize and existing/proven mag like Wilson and the Walther/edcx9 Tube

The original H9 used the 3rd Gen Smith (5906) magazine, which is a robust design. Mec-Gar makes great versions of them.

[willie]

I studied this doomed project from first notice and predicted the outcome. I wish that I had been wrong. Bullet casters often slug bores to determine diameter. .357/.358 bore diameter are common in 9mm handguns. My guess is that lockup was the main cause of inaccuracy in the Hudson. My lack of imagination inhibits seeing a niche for this weapon other than specialty interest which to me means purchase by those with coin.

[HCM]

I studied this doomed project from first notice and predicted the outcome. I wish that I had been wrong. Bullet casters often slug bores to determine diameter. .357/.358 bore diameter are common in 9mm handguns. My guess is that lockup was the main cause of inaccuracy in the Hudson. My lack of imagination inhibits seeing a niche for this weapon other than specialty interest which to me means purchase by those with coin.

So I could take your guess about the cause or I could take the opinion of two different professional pistol-smiths.

357/357 bore diameter is not “common” in 9mm’s it is out of specification. When it does occur it results in accuracy issues unless you custom load 9mm rounds with oversized. bullets. The S&W 986 fiasco being a prime example.

[willie]

So I could take your guess about the cause or I could take the opinion of two different professional pistol-smiths.

357/357 bore diameter is not “common” in 9mm’s it is out of specification. When it does occur it results in accuracy issues unless you custom load 9mm rounds with oversized. bullets. The S&W 986 fiasco being a prime example.

Other than 60 years of serious study that include interaction with career professional in all areas of shooting, I have no basis to comment. That is, I have no credentials. On a pistol forum of such high standing as ours, my ethics and my concern for our mission prevent my speaking as an authority. Instead I commented as a hobbyist.But allow me the immodesty of saying that if I spent an afternoon with two pistol smiths, I do think that they would learn a thing or two. Ideally a 9mm pistol barrel would have a .355/.356 bore diameter. Very few do. Colt .38 Special revolver barrels measured .354. I never saw an explanation. James Clark and I corresponded and sometimes chatted on the phone. He was the first professional to school me in barrel idiosyncrasies. I could list others.

[jbrimlow]

No comp, no dot, no thanks.


Otherwise kind of cool.

This is where I'm at too.

Oh, and also:

Never buy Gen 1 anything.

[Jim Watson]

I have seen numerous reports of 9mm P groove diameters* well over .355" so while it may not be in spec, it is definitely common.
It is hard to tell what the tolerance is, SAAMI does not show a linear tolerance for the barrel. There is a minimum cross sectional area for bore + groove open area, but that is kind of hard to visualize.

*Come on, guys, let's try to pay as much attention to the difference between bore and groove diameters as we do to the difference between clip and magazine.
Nominal bore diameter for 9mm P is .346" which is why a Luger with full proof marks will commonly be stamped 8.81 or 8.82 where its bore diameter was quickly checked with a plug gauge.

It can be difficult to use groove diameter bullets in one of these large 9mms because if the chamber is held to spec, a cartridge with .357" bullet won't chamber. Tight chamber necks and short or tight throats are about as common as large groove diameters. Lots of competitors have their chamber throats reamed to accept their ammunition rather than loading specifically for that one gun.


But a Hudsonish gun that works would be interesting.

[willie]

I have seen numerous reports of 9mm P groove diameters* well over .355" so while it may not be in spec, it is definitely common.
It is hard to tell what the tolerance is, SAAMI does not show a linear tolerance for the barrel. There is a minimum cross sectional area for bore + groove open area, but that is kind of hard to visualize.

*Come on, guys, let's try to pay as much attention to the difference between bore and groove diameters as we do to the difference between clip and magazine.
Nominal bore diameter for 9mm P is .346" which is why a Luger with full proof marks will commonly be stamped 8.81 or 8.82 where its bore diameter was quickly checked with a plug gauge.

It can be difficult to use groove diameter bullets in one of these large 9mms because if the chamber is held to spec, a cartridge with .357" bullet won't chamber. Tight chamber necks and short or tight throats are about as common as large groove diameters. Lots of competitors have their chamber throats reamed to accept their ammunition rather than loading specifically for that one gun.


But a Hudsonish gun that works would be interesting.

Thank you for this explanation. My post above shared observations about variations in 9mm groove diameter. Some have stated that jacketed .355 bullets will obturate upon firing and conform to the larger bore. Since the 9mm is a high pressure round, this may occur. I lack a citation and will not assert it. I do agree that the H9's .358 bore very likely contributed to some degree for the pistol's inaccuracy. I attribute most of the accuracy problem to locking/unlocking issues. The interaction of these two variables was significant. The locking mechanism was a new design. Further, tolerance issues haunted the project. I can't take credit for making the determination. The designer himself revealed the lock up problem in an interview.

[olstyn]

One of the biggest differences is the height of the dust cover. Which on the original H9 housed their goofy recoil spring setup. The DD show in the pictures (which could be a render) has a more traditional 1913-rail and a much shorter dust cover, suggesting that maybe they have eliminated the proprietary Hudson recoil spring setup and maybe more to a proper guide-rod type setup.

Wouldn't that basically remove what's special about the H9? I thought the whole point of the design was to get the recoil forces lower/more in line with the shooter's arms?

[Tod-13]

Wouldn't that basically remove what's special about the H9? I thought the whole point of the design was to get the recoil forces lower/more in line with the shooter's arms?

Depends. I always thought of that as extraneous marketing nonsense. To me, it is a 1911 style striker fired gun built in 9mm. Getting rid of the gimmicky aspect of the "novel" recoil spring may make it more reliable and more palatable to the market.

Now, they need to make it optics ready from release date too.