Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Daniel Defense reviving the Hudson H9?

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Patent details are available on Google. The curious might consult. The goofy design produced an appearance that Hudson valued. I'm not certain that the lowered location of the recoil spring contributed other than in theory. More weight out front probably did reduce flip. I equate this design to gizmo's that shotgun shooters developed to lessen felt recoil. Mercury enclosed within tubes is an example. Another is a set of unequal opposing springs that move when the gun is fired.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    Patent details are available on Google. The curious might consult. The goofy design produced an appearance that Hudson valued. I'm not certain that the lowered location of the recoil spring contributed other than in theory. More weight out front probably did reduce flip. I equate this design to gizmo's that shotgun shooters developed to lessen felt recoil. Mercury enclosed within tubes is an example. Another is a set of unequal opposing springs that move when the gun is fired.
    Isn't the recoil rod and spring down there because there was some of the locking mechanism down in that region? I thought it was a byproduct of the locking mechanism and nothing more. Smarter people than I will probably be able to elaborate on this.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    I don't know anything about the H9, but anecdotally about 5 years ago I slugged the factory bores on 4 of my Beretta 92 pistols, because they were "known" online to be oversized as a rule, but I wanted to see for myself as I was about to try shooting cast bullets in them to save some jingle. These barrels spanned probably a decade of manufacture and were all 4.9", one being a G-SD barrel with the back-bored crown. They all slugged between .357 and .3575. They were all reasonably accurate with both cast and jacketed bullets.

    The only Beretta barrel that ever slugged at .355 for me is the Bar-Sto on the 92G LTT that I've got in the classifieds.

  4. #24
    I recall a similar conclusion from an old gunzine article.
    Somebody loaded one of those "Bigbore Berettas" with every diameter bullet available .355-.358" and saw no difference in accuracy.

    Ed Harris once had Barsto make four BHP barrels at nominal .355" 16 twist but with different chambers and throats. He saw some advantage to one particular type, I don't remember which. Irv then made him one out of a .38 Special blank, .357" 18.75 twist. it was more accurate than any of the others.

    What I call the American Plan is for the bullet to fill the grooves and "seal the bore."
    Some European makers have thought that there ought to be someplace to go for the bullet material displaced by the lands, so they have what we would think oversize barrels.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  5. #25
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by olstyn View Post
    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?
    I'm no expert in kinematics in this regard. But a 9mm handgun with a full-size frame made of metal and slide of decent mass just isn't going to recoil alot, so it doesn't matter much. When they bring out the aluminum frame, optics cut, comp-equipped, thumb safety model, I'll buy two.

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
  •