Hudson H9.

C

Cheapshooter

New member
Kemikos, with less than 20 posts maybe an explanation of my username is needed if you are going to comment on it. It comes from the fact that I am an FFL 03 Collector of Curio and Relic license holder. But my purchases are mostly milsurp shooters. Back in the day, 8 or nine years ago I bought all sorts of surplus "cheap shooter" Mosin Nagants, Mausers, Enfields, Styers, SKSs, CZ, anx Walther hand guns, and others. My "collection" is not a collection, but an accumulation. I do not have collectables, I have shooters. My other guns vary in manufacturer from Colt, S&W, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Springfield Armory, Winchester, Remi gto , Marlin, and others. I just don't spend money on expensive "status symbol" guns that perform no better than quality guns at half their price.
 
T

TunnelRat

New member
That’s great. That doesn’t change the interviews I’ve watched with them (and nor do I imagine do the interviews I watched change your personal interaction). My point is what I've seen presented both in them speaking and in their advertising material doesn't come across as them saying they've eclipsed his Grace John Moses Browning. There is definitely some self-promotion there as there is with anything in this industry ("Perfection" comes to mind). But in the hours of interviews I've watched with them, literally, they didn't come across as self important. That's merely my perspective.

There have been a lot of firearms since the 1911, with most of them using Browning's tilting barrel design. Yet despite the fact that almost all of them borrowed from Browning they still went out and designed and marketed newer pistols and said or at least implied to some extent that they had something better than Browning. The same is true in many industries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
T

TunnelRat

New member
My other guns vary in manufacturer from Colt, S&W, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Springfield Armory, Winchester, Remi gto , Marlin, and others. I just don't spend money on expensive "status symbol" guns that perform no better than quality guns at half their price.
Click to expand...

I'd point out that Colt, S&W, SIG, Springfield Armory all have pistols in the $1100+ category. They also all have pistols cheaper as well. In terms of a straight pull trigger, steel framed, striker-fired pistol using the same offset recoil spring as the Hudson H9 I can't think of anything cheaper. Do those features matter? Not sure. But when you're comparing prices between manufacturers you generally look at models with similar features. I fully agree that for $500 and under there are many very reliable firearms. But just because someone chooses to spend more I don't automatically assume they did so solely for "status".
 
F

FrankenMauser

New member
Sorry, I'm not the least bit intrigued by this one. Hickok was sometimes having a mag hang up on the trigger bow upon insertion. He also was printing low with every type of ammo he put through it. I just can't abide by a pistol in the thousand dollar range that won't shoot to p.o.a. And the front end of that thing just looks goofy to me. For me, it's a pass
Click to expand...
That's quite the decision to be made based on a sample size of one, in the the hands of a single shooter, being fired by a person you've never met, whom didn't see the point of the pistol to begin with.





No, I don't want one. But I find the declaration of it being a failure, based on one YouTube video, to be rather questionable...
Elon Musk is an alien that's been driving technological evolution for 720 years. Saw it on YouTube. Gotta be true.
 
K

Kemikos

New member
Cheapshooter said:
Kemikos, with less than 20 posts maybe an explanation of my username is needed if you are going to comment on it.
Click to expand...

First of all, let's get this out there right off the bat: I didn't intend any offense, and I'm sorry if you thought that my comment was meant that way.

I was being maybe a little snarky, true, but I'm sure you can see how this:
Cheapshooter said:
An $1100 ugly gun is an ugly gun that waists about $500! It serves no purpose other than for people to say they spent a bunch of money on a gun.
Click to expand...
...without any other context, could make someone think the main reason you don't like the gun is the looks and price, and I was amused by the connection to your username.

For what it's worth, the majority of guns in my possession cost me under $300, so I'm hardly the status-seeker you seem to think I am. Heck, I only have one at the moment that cost me over $500...

It's true that there are plenty of perfectly satisfactory $600 guns; I said as much in my original post. But high quality, well-finished, all-steel guns tend to be in the $1000 ballpark, in my experience, so if I (as I said) was already in the market for something in that range, what's wrong with checking out something new? Are you claiming that the Colts, Springfields, and Kimbers I've tried out are a waste of money too? How about that sweet Shadow 2 I got to shoot last month? I mean, if that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I have to disagree...

At any rate, this is already more than I intended to say on the subject, so I'll end by repeating myself: I made a joke about your username in relation to your post, but meant no offense by it. Peace?
 
Last edited:
C

Cheapshooter

New member
No offense taken. It happens sometimes with my user
It also happens because I see the value in guns in how well they function, and shoot. Not necessarily their finely finished astetics. I have no safe wueens, nor guns that I would be extremely upset with a little honest wear. All my guns get shot, and several get carried. Even my custom built Remington 700 7MM Mag that I have $1100+ in isn't a beauty queen. It's a working gun, and my deer rifle capable of sub MOA accuracy @ 100 yds.
But I have to say the looks of the Hudson to me isn't anything I would be proud of.
Then thete is the reduced "recoil" claim. Not much to reduce in a service sized 9MM in the first place. Which makes that poi t of the high price void.
 
C

Cheapshooter

New member
After further thought, and carefully watching Hickock45's excellent as always video review, I stand with my first impression. A 2 1+2 pound iron brick that won't shoot to point of aim, and has a built in obstruction in the magazine well. Now that's $1100 worth right there!:rolleyes:
Then there is the fine finish that an $1100 gun should have. The finish on this thing looks like that of my Hi-Point C9. Which weighs a half pound less, and has about the same amount of muzzle flip. But it hits where it's aimed.:D
 
S

Snuffy308

New member
Didn't say it was a failure. Just said it wasn't for me.. Sorry if somebody got all butt hurt over my opinion but it is my opinion.:rolleyes:
 
J

jr24

New member
Shot one last week.

The Good:

Feels marvelous in my hands (I'm a 1911 guy) and the trigger is fantastic for a striker fired gun. Despite the weight, it would carry well as it is quite thin.

The Bad:

Accuracy was beyond sub par in my hands, despite my love for both the ergos and trigger. I am convinced it is not me, but rather the gun. It is good enough "combat accurate" at speed, but I shot groups 4-6" at 10 yards, I expect half that on a bad day at 10 yards. On the same day and distance I was shooting a ragged hole with my glock 17.

Felt recoil was significant (for a 9mm) and while it did recoil flatter, switching to my Glock gave me a "what happened to the recoil" feeling.

Overall I expected to love it with the trigger and ergos and ended up very, very, "meh". A SAO Sig 226 Legion would be a far better use of my $1100, or 2 more Glock 17s (or Sig 320, Walther PPQ, HK VP9, etc)
 
J

jr24

New member
Cheapshooter said:
Wasn't recoil reduction the whole point?
Click to expand...
It surprised me, frankly. I guess I'd compare it to my BHP, which is odd from the bore axis.

It didn't have much flip, so it was very fast. So perhaps the design just pushes felt recoil over muzzle rise.

All I can say for sure is my Glock 17 was more fun to shoot, and thats "old boring reliable" in 9mm for me.

The accuracy, or lack there of, was what really killed it for me. I love my Glock but its no Sig, BHP or 1911 so when the H9 made my Glock 17 feel like a target pistol well... yeah.
 
K

Kemikos

New member
jr24 said:
It surprised me, frankly. I guess I'd compare it to my BHP, which is odd from the bore axis.

It didn't have much flip, so it was very fast. So perhaps the design just pushes felt recoil over muzzle rise.

All I can say for sure is my Glock 17 was more fun to shoot, and thats "old boring reliable" in 9mm for me.

The accuracy, or lack there of, was what really killed it for me. I love my Glock but its no Sig, BHP or 1911 so when the H9 made my Glock 17 feel like a target pistol well... yeah.
Click to expand...
That's disappointing to hear. It sounds like maybe TTAG's accuracy issues weren't a fluke.

I would still like to see a few more rested accuracy tests done. Hopefully the problem is something that Hudson can fix without waiting for a completely new second run...
 
W

wizzamen

New member
The Hudson H9:

It's the .45 GAP of pistols, nobody asked for it and nobody wants it. I will stick with 1911's when I want a 1911 trigger.

I predict it will have a very small cult following and nothing more, especially at the prices they are asking for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top