I just added the gamut of CZ military pistols to my collection, and man they were doing things seventy years ago that we still don't get on modern guns. I'd kill for a smaller CZ-52 with the full DA/SA system of the CZ-50/70 chambered in 5.7 double stack, with an optics mount and dust cover rail. I think that'd be a real killer on the market.
I saw an DD H9 at my local gun shop. I handled it, did all the standard gun shop things you do when deciding what you want to get. And, it honestly felt and functioned fine-like maybe a nicer version of a Glock. But, they are really dreaming with that price point. This will never be a gun for me. Honestly, bless the hearts of whomever buys this gun for that price.(I’m from the south-“bless your heart” means you’re stupid)
Yup, it's just a regular 9mm, could get a glock or Canick for less money and they felt the same in hand. Not that I cared much about the Hudson version either, but they at least they were trying something different even if it didn't work out.
It's funny I was just recently wondering why the H9 seemed to be such a controversial gun because I never followed its development, and now suddenly I see Ian on my feed with a video about it LOL. Great video as usual, glad to finally learn about the gun and hear someone who actually explains what all went wrong and the changes instead of just hearing the complaints with no explanation.
Don't be so sure. When management gets something in their head and they start seeing dollar signs, strange shit happens. I was involved with the sale/purchase of a competitor for 35 billion, sale didn't go through (engineering and software details). Said buyer then had to give the competitor 3.5 billion and come crawling back to us saying "just kidding, we love you guys".....
Not uncommon throughout manufacturing. Not long ago, the company I work for bought the license to manufacture a piece of equipment that our company had no experience with, no way to manufacture without major retooling, and no established distribution for. After several attempts, it just ended up with millions spent and not even a working prototype completed.
Thank you, Ian. The H9 and the Remington R51 are two on the guns that made me realize modern "gun reviewers" can be as full of crap as the magazine gun reviewers of the past. The TH-cam gun channels praised the H9 when it came out. The company went out of business, in part, because of the avalanche of non working returns. They also had a very short service life. 2,000 rounds is ridiculous. Many of the same TH-cam reviewers praised the Springfield Armory Prodigy. It had tons of issues, too. "Buyer beware" has never lost its relevance through time.
For a while I reviewed a non-gun-related product in a non-video format, and was as honest as I could be. But I soon learned that others might not see what I felt was acceptable similarly. Nor could I do more than speculate what long-term results might be beyond comparing them to what I'd found from other items I'd tested. Even in open conversations with several others doing the same work there were sometimes problems which none of us had discovered no matter how diligently we tried as well as problems that only arose later in long-term testing. And there was always a question of whether all of us were getting the random samples or hand-picked ones which nobody on our end could know for sure. Tldr don't blame the reviewers or distrust them out-of-hand, but do understand that only extensive long-term testing of actual normal production items used in real-world conditions will give you the truth, and you might be wise to wait till then to make your purchasing decision. Semper Caveat Emptor
Ian also praised the H9 when it came out. It was a rare product that was doing something truly new and it was a new company with founders that seemed like they were passionate. It was a good story and most people wanted to see them succeed. The extent of the parts breakages weren't known until after they went under. Most reviewers don't have the time to run 2k rounds through every gun.
@@P_RO_ same with cars. when they test m , all is great.(well, on some cars) But only a 100.000 km test and consumer experience can tell how the car is really. I would never buy a car-or a gun- the first year. let other people test it.
@P_RO_ I do product reviews on my podcast, "The 2nd is For Everyone podcast." I'm also a co-host on the Firearms Insider's Gun and Gear Review Podcast. We review and discuss products on our weekly podcast. There's a difference between honest reviews and making an advertisement for a product. My fellow host actually uses the products they review and give their honest perspective and feedback. There's pros and cons because we understand that listeners may be purchasing life-saving equipment based on our experiences. We've had products with issues, and we've contacted the manufacturer, telling them the issues we've had. We tell our listeners those issues and how they were handled by the manufacturer. Many of the TH-cam gun reviewers won't do any of these things. Many people watching firearm reviews want positive reinforcement of products they have already purchased. I want people to have good information, and the manufacturer's reputation comes second.
There's a difference, and a significant one. The Hudson H9 was a fundamentally well thought out, innovative and high potential product crippled by financial difficulties resulting in lack of R&D to perfect it. It's not a bad product. It's a good prototype, marketed as a product. The SA-80 had the backing of the entire UK government, and still managed to be terrible. In fact even after the HK fix it still continued being terrible. Everything in the original gun is just bad.
@@kodiakkeith and you base that on what exactly? The price? Are you an engineer? Some guns simply have more forgiving tolerances than others when new. That is a fact. If it still does the same after 100-150 rounds I'd say it shit until then I'll reserve my judgment.
@@anthonyknight170 do you need a published peer reviewed study or something? Based on the fact that gun people just know when a gun is to much money and not reliable enough. IF you take the time to read reviews of guns and go shooting some yourself, you would understand that what kodiakkeith said is true. For example there tons of guns in the $400-600 price point that are dead nuts reliable.
It's baffling to me how Hudson thought that people wouldn't mind a 2000 round product lifespan. That's about a years shooting, if you're regularly at the range. I do a box of 50 per week at least 40 weeks per year. Boom, gun finished, 1200 bucks down the drain. Astonishing!
I used to work with a family member of some of the guys who developed the H9 who was super excited about. It was neat to get to hear a little inside baseball about something being developed and I was looking forward to seeing early drawings. As soon as I saw it, I stated it was a solution looking to solve a problem that wasn't really there. It was a cool thought experiment, but it would ultimately fail. They got rather angry with me and said replied with "Well what do you know!?". Years later, said former co-worker bragged when it was the darling of shot show. I said, "wait for it" The guy has not spoken to me since they crapped the bed.
PSA Rock 5.7 has a nice, low bore axis, coupled with a low-recoil round. The Beretta PX4 series also has a fairly low bore axis, and the rotating barrel system mitigated recoil nicely, especially in 9mm.
i saw a steyr m9 a few years back and thought it looked really cool and felt really comfortable, then i watched some shooting reviews and said "H e ll NO!" what a pos.
@@GhostC10 And later to Nokia. Nokia pulled the same trick BUT they abandoned every phone in the development pipeline. It killed Nokia and the pieces got bought by Microsoft.
You can really see the difference in engineering in how each pistol ejects brass. DD seems to eject always in the same way, consistent action. Original Hudson all over the place.
3:49 Hi-Point has legendary customer service and solid durability. Hi-point is the gun that you buy when your grand kids are going to need something to flash at the parole officer 70 years later. Hi-point might have outdated magazines, terrible ergonomics, horrible aesthetics and brutal recoil; but you best be sure that hipoint is meant to last through a lifetime of poor choices.
I have had a couple of HiPoints over the lastb3 decades. I do not argue with buyers, because I understand the practicality of the firearm. However, I believe that a firearms company should build its reputation on the gun, not the customer service. Yes, customer service is awesome, but it makes more sense for a firearm company to be known for good guns.
@@wingracer1614 True, but good customer service is appreciated with every product and there are a lot of companies that utterly fail at customer service even with ostensibly cheaper products. Heck, dealing with microsoft customer service is borderline impossible even when you're trying to do something that costs no money whatsoever.
Thanks Ian , always loved the original Hudson….almost bought one at Nations Gun Show in chantilly, VA back in 2018 , but something told me it wasn’t ready yet…so I waited then they disappeared….glad DD brought it back …
It's reminiscent of the issues the UK had with the SA80 and the changes HK engineers made. The tiny differences and the understanding of materials that make a huge difference to the end product
For real. To go from an absolute darling in the gun community after ShotShow to going out of business is such an unbelievable sequence of missteps and errors in judgement. What a shame.
More like: Hudson, trying to run before learning how to walk. The concept was good, as this Daniel Defense H9 proves, but oh man, did Hudson f*** up. Selling a gun that is essentially still in the Beta stage and ignoring all the problems is already a bad thing. But then to grenade your sales by announcing an aluminium version of the same gun must take first price for worst decision ever. And it's a shame: Cy and Lauren Hudson seemed really nice people, but they simply had no business sense.
The new one completely lost the vibe of the original. The redesigned trigger guard and dust cover no longer have the Sci Fi vibe of the original. This has 100% made people less interested, myself included.
Yeah the original h9 looked like something out of a scifi show. The DD h9 looks pretty standard. They should have just done a Glock clone or went for a HK p7 knockoff as the patent has expired. Whoop whoop
_"A company that went bankrupt due to issues not directly connected with the quality of the gun."_ WELLL... we could talk about that. The original Hudson H9 was absolutely _rife_ with defects. And the Daniel Defense fell very, _VERY_ short of solving them all.
Lot of people hate on Daniel Defense for one reason or another. Gotta give them respect for reviving the dumpster fire that was the Hudson H9. Definitely plenty of other handguns in the price range of the DD H9 that are far superior, but it is a cool handgun.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 overpriced for what you get. they sell 800 dollar rifles dressed up in their weird looking stock and special mags and then charge 2k for it lmao
It will take DD more than a decade to get their investment back because armchair gun buyers will want a completely new design for $700 or less. No lessons will be learned.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 overpriced, they charge 2k for a 1000 dollar gun basically. paying for the name. can build a superior rifle for half the cost easily.
@@nathanatramp what is an "armchair gun buyer"? Fact of the matter is any "new" firearm coming to market needs to provide some significant advantage over established competition to be successful, and I don't see this bringing one at it's price point.
I would love to see a lcp2 sized version of this stylish of a gun , I really do like the look of the gun a lot. My bias here is that I am liking the non-skeleton triggers better though.
Congratulations to Daniel Defense. You bought a pistol (design) a had to redo more than 95% of it. Looks like the only thing you got any use out of was the H9 name. I hope you got a really good price for so small a purchase.
@@Cakeyflour In a perfect world, no, but _all_ new products have bugs to be worked out. _All_ manufacturers face a learning curve when manufacturing something new. This is why it has been received wisdom for my whole lifetime that you don't by the first year production of a new model car; you're going be beta testing the product. That's life in the real world.
@@Cakeyflour One could argue that higher end and expensive pistols are usually made to tighter tolerances and are more prone to require a break in period.
I feel like the kind of people who would want this pistol already have the P01 (probably cajunized). But those who don’t like DA/SA or hammer fired guns would welcome it less the price tag.
The Hudson H9 looked cool and different with that large dust cover. It looked a little sci-fi. Daniel Defense fixed the problems, but in doing so made it look like any other 9mm on the market, and at the price of $1,300.00. It has a lot of competition. $200 more and you can have a FK BRNO PSD-C that can convert between 9mm 10mm and 7.5 FK rounds, scratch the itch for a different looking cool gun, and get to shoot the 7.5 FK round with it's interesting characteristics.
Normally this is a potentially useful metric, but 9x19 is a huge cost outlier. I can get 9x19 for 14c/round, so does that mean any 9mm pistol over $140 is a bad deal?
The problem with the entire handgun market is that they are just difficult to shoot. Creating something that can shoot demonstrably better than the Glock is nearly impossible due to shooter limitation. What small performance gains can be squeezed out are then negated by price, aftermarket size, and track record. What they did is awesome- handguns are just SO challenging.
You probably think they are challenging because you like Glock. They suck ass. Mainly the trigger and grip angle. And I've put thousands through one for work. It takes so much focus and effort to shoot one well. Now the M&P. Effortless. Easy. Feels like an extension of my body. Feels like shooting with cheat codes enabled if you're used to Glock. M17, M9, 1911. Almost anything else is simpler and more intuitive to shoot than a Glock. If you want a really nice experience try a 2011. Try something better and see if you still find pistol shooting difficult.
@ you missed the point of my comment. No matter how good you shoot a pistol, you won’t be printing sub MOA groups at 100. Most people struggle to keep it in the A-zone at 7yds in a range lane much less on a timer. At that level, the difference between how good the platforms are is erased. This has nothing to do with my bias or preference… sales numbers don’t lie. It sounds like you have a personal preference, and good on you for improving your shooting. Most people don’t. And most gun companies are for profit enterprises so the market (primarily people who never shoot) dictates what gets made.
The problem with Engineering is alot of people with an interest in shooting (motorcyclists are as bad) thinks they are an Engineer, despite no formal training or qaulifications. How difficult can it be? Well, it's medicine difficult. If you can't understand a simple tolerance stack or do a decent FMEA, Firearm design and manufacture isn't for you
It's a tad unsettling that a new review sample has to be first round smacked into battery and doesn't hold open on empty. And multiple malfunctions in 2 mags. L They bought a pig in a poke.
So I’ve been rolling around snagging one with my discount; The one thing the guys at the shop and myself were wondering about was that connector tab on the guide rod. How robust is that and do I have to worry about it snapping or bending? In my first experiences with the H9, myself and others at the shop were thrown off by the “upside down” trigger safety while testing one of models DD sent the store. I know I like to put my finger low on the trigger shoe so I wasn’t consistently disengaging the trigger safety. Obviously when I rode it a bit higher that remedied itself.
Interesting. As someone who was very excited about the concept of the original Hudson I'm not gonna lie, the level of newly exposed lax engineering in it is disheartening.
Wait. Are you saying Hudson KNEW their gun had a 2000 round life expectancy and chose to sell it anyway? Considering many of us can put 1000 rounds a week through a pistol, that’s basically criminal.
5:56 I went on about that when looking at modding some guns to be more drop safe. That trigger dingus doesn't look to follow that design guide. I did some of that on my Canik. Sear mechanism has a long tab to interface with decocker; I cut it off after replacing decocker spring with a roll pin. Also wedge the decocker button in with a piece of tape for friction fit, so it doesn't just fall out when disassembled.
I remember getting my OG H9 during the 600$ bankruptcy sale and I was satisfied at that price for an interesting eclectic pietol. 1200 was always too much for an unproven product that was quickly found to have durability issues by competition shooters.
I note that the original is able to make it through a whole magazine without issue. Slightly surprised you didn't dwell a little more on the malfunctions, at least until you revealed that they sent you the gun. Is it an issue with the shorter magazine design?
Glocks would be appealing to me if they had decent ergos, sights, and trigger. Also if they looked cool. Till then, cz 75 and cz p10 lines, and the usp line does it for me.
Hudson: "How many people are going to actually shoot 2,000 rounds through this?" Me: "My Kimber Desert Warrior has over 4,000 in 8 months, i buy firearms to shoot them, not to have safe queens."
Still seems a bit buggy. I'd rather have a gun whose handling I don't like (such as a factory Glock), but which shoots reliably right out of the box. They solved the surprise bang issue, and it sounds like they solved the early breakage issues, which is good - that's hurdles 1 & 3 on the track. And the accuracy seems acceptable (certainly better than the initial occaisional keyhole), which is hurdle 4. But they don't seem to have cleared the *second* hurdle - gun that works reliably. I once had a Taurus Millennium that I bought from a friend who really needed cash. It exhibited *better* reliability (it only malfed once per magazine). I *still* held on to that gun until the factory did a recall, because I didn't want to have it on my conscience if I sold it and someone tried to rely on it to save their life.
Shakespeare might say "Methinks there's an elephant in the room" given the number of malfunctions we all saw which got no comment from Ian. Perhaps the H9 isn't broken in yet, but the number and types of malfunctions indicate much deeper problems which likely won't go away on their own. The usual cause of this is a lack of engineering in depth, ie not creating enough design margin for assured reliability which is essentially the same thing Hudson did. At least Ian didn't edit the malfunctions out so if WYSIWYG then it might be wise to trust your eyes with this one.
I'm not an engineer; but I have little faith that the little tooth that actuates the recoil spring is going to last much more than 2000 rounds either. I think they just fixed problems by making different problems.
They might feel similar, but they sure don't look similar in firing, Ian. The Hudson looked to have noticeably less apparent muzzle flip. This new DD version has lost a fair bit of the secret sauce that made the Hudson so interesting and seems much more "just another pistol". Seems to need more work, also, unless it was a matter of that particular ammo not playing well with it. That damned Hudson just always looked so good. Pity about all the issues that surrounded them.
Two questions 1. Would “Daniel defense“ have been better off, not buying the Hudson pistol and starting their re-engineering journey with another pistol? 2. Considering that “Daniel defense“ hasn’t really been a pistol company so far, why would anyone want to buy an H9 pistol that has had so much engineering put into it that may or may not work over the long-term? The H9 eventually might be a good pistol, it might even be a good pistol today, but it seems risky to invest in it.
I see Daniel Defense improved the drop safety even further by having it not go into battery to begin with. That's a nice touch.
It's not a flaw, it's a feature.
I handled a preproduction year or two ago, legitimately don't understand why anyone even cared to begin with.
Can't speak for everyone but the "ramblings" are one of the reasons I really enjoy this channel.
Not really 'ramblings' but a deeper explanation of his thoughts which is VERY interesting when followed at that level
Nerdy, rambling, and LARP free. Bless Ian and bless Forgotten Weapons.
You mean how explained the issue specifically? That was tedious though. It's like, who wants to know how a gun works?
@@PiYodTong lots of people.
Ian explains everything to the Nth degree. You are never lacking knowledge on the subject.
I’m Hudson sir, he’s Hicks.
Game over for Hudson.
@@anthonykarlsson5166 Yeah, but like a total boss!
Somebody wake up Hicks
RIP Bill Paxton
Hudson, run a bypass…
Cz75: Look what they need to do to mimic fraction of our power
I just added the gamut of CZ military pistols to my collection, and man they were doing things seventy years ago that we still don't get on modern guns.
I'd kill for a smaller CZ-52 with the full DA/SA system of the CZ-50/70 chambered in 5.7 double stack, with an optics mount and dust cover rail.
I think that'd be a real killer on the market.
😂
Daniel Defense... We make guns you would normally only pay one third for.
Daniel and the cooler daniel
I saw an DD H9 at my local gun shop. I handled it, did all the standard gun shop things you do when deciding what you want to get. And, it honestly felt and functioned fine-like maybe a nicer version of a Glock. But, they are really dreaming with that price point. This will never be a gun for me. Honestly, bless the hearts of whomever buys this gun for that price.(I’m from the south-“bless your heart” means you’re stupid)
Yup, it's just a regular 9mm, could get a glock or Canick for less money and they felt the same in hand.
Not that I cared much about the Hudson version either, but they at least they were trying something different even if it didn't work out.
It's funny I was just recently wondering why the H9 seemed to be such a controversial gun because I never followed its development, and now suddenly I see Ian on my feed with a video about it LOL. Great video as usual, glad to finally learn about the gun and hear someone who actually explains what all went wrong and the changes instead of just hearing the complaints with no explanation.
Theyre in ur walls theyre in ur walls theyre in ur walls theyre in ur wa
“It’s drop safe because it goes out of battery” that’s when my p320 took offense and exploded on me.
Sig: "...and I took that personally."
The P320 shit was massively overblown and was fixed over ten years ago anyway. Moron.
🙄
The idea that DD could’ve bought the H9 without their engineers looking at it first is comical
Don't be so sure. When management gets something in their head and they start seeing dollar signs, strange shit happens. I was involved with the sale/purchase of a competitor for 35 billion, sale didn't go through (engineering and software details). Said buyer then had to give the competitor 3.5 billion and come crawling back to us saying "just kidding, we love you guys".....
I can imagine a lot of these problems aren't things you can easily just look at and know it'll be a problem
If you dont think a gun mfr can over estimate the ease of moving a project to market Ask palmetto and the mp44. Or h&k with the sa80 "upgrade"
Not uncommon throughout manufacturing. Not long ago, the company I work for bought the license to manufacture a piece of equipment that our company had no experience with, no way to manufacture without major retooling, and no established distribution for. After several attempts, it just ended up with millions spent and not even a working prototype completed.
As an engineer, I'd be more surprised if they did.
That was a fair number of malfunctions in a relatively small number of rounds.
He had more malfunctions in 2 minutes than I had in my entire pistol competition career.
He had more malfunctions in 2 minutes than I had in my entire pistol competition career. Impressive
“They bought the design. Then they showed it to their engineers. And they said “oh no”.
PSA is getting flashbacks to their STG-44 re-design.
"oh no. Oh no. Oh no, that's bad" 3:13
Kool-aide man
*OH YE……OH NO OH NOOOOOO!*
I need this cut into a gif.
Thank you, Ian. The H9 and the Remington R51 are two on the guns that made me realize modern "gun reviewers" can be as full of crap as the magazine gun reviewers of the past. The TH-cam gun channels praised the H9 when it came out. The company went out of business, in part, because of the avalanche of non working returns. They also had a very short service life. 2,000 rounds is ridiculous. Many of the same TH-cam reviewers praised the Springfield Armory Prodigy. It had tons of issues, too. "Buyer beware" has never lost its relevance through time.
For a while I reviewed a non-gun-related product in a non-video format, and was as honest as I could be. But I soon learned that others might not see what I felt was acceptable similarly. Nor could I do more than speculate what long-term results might be beyond comparing them to what I'd found from other items I'd tested. Even in open conversations with several others doing the same work there were sometimes problems which none of us had discovered no matter how diligently we tried as well as problems that only arose later in long-term testing. And there was always a question of whether all of us were getting the random samples or hand-picked ones which nobody on our end could know for sure.
Tldr don't blame the reviewers or distrust them out-of-hand, but do understand that only extensive long-term testing of actual normal production items used in real-world conditions will give you the truth, and you might be wise to wait till then to make your purchasing decision. Semper Caveat Emptor
Ian also praised the H9 when it came out. It was a rare product that was doing something truly new and it was a new company with founders that seemed like they were passionate. It was a good story and most people wanted to see them succeed. The extent of the parts breakages weren't known until after they went under. Most reviewers don't have the time to run 2k rounds through every gun.
@@P_RO_ same with cars. when they test m , all is great.(well, on some cars) But only a 100.000 km test and consumer experience can tell how the car is really. I would never buy a car-or a gun- the first year. let other people test it.
There’s a reason why first pistol recommendations are almost always a Glock. Maybe an M&P, too
Watch the new product videos for fun, not for recs
@P_RO_ I do product reviews on my podcast, "The 2nd is For Everyone podcast." I'm also a co-host on the Firearms Insider's Gun and Gear Review Podcast. We review and discuss products on our weekly podcast. There's a difference between honest reviews and making an advertisement for a product. My fellow host actually uses the products they review and give their honest perspective and feedback. There's pros and cons because we understand that listeners may be purchasing life-saving equipment based on our experiences. We've had products with issues, and we've contacted the manufacturer, telling them the issues we've had. We tell our listeners those issues and how they were handled by the manufacturer. Many of the TH-cam gun reviewers won't do any of these things. Many people watching firearm reviews want positive reinforcement of products they have already purchased. I want people to have good information, and the manufacturer's reputation comes second.
Best ramble in months. I love the details like balanced parts promote drop safety.
Ian: "I've been rambling a bit there"
Me: "That's... why I'm here"
Kind of reminds me of the SA-80 story, where HK redesigned most of the gun to make it actually good.
There's a difference, and a significant one. The Hudson H9 was a fundamentally well thought out, innovative and high potential product crippled by financial difficulties resulting in lack of R&D to perfect it. It's not a bad product. It's a good prototype, marketed as a product.
The SA-80 had the backing of the entire UK government, and still managed to be terrible. In fact even after the HK fix it still continued being terrible. Everything in the original gun is just bad.
That was one of the easiest to comprehend explanations of the drop safe and slide velocity issue I have heard
So... the original dies at 2000 rounds, and the new one malfunctions a couple times per mag?
might not have passed the break in period yet.
It's really pretty sad when the "fixed" version of your pistol can't make it through a magazine without some kind of malfunction.
@@anthonyknight170 A $1200 handgun shouldn't need a break in period.
@@kodiakkeith and you base that on what exactly? The price? Are you an engineer?
Some guns simply have more forgiving tolerances than others when new. That is a fact. If it still does the same after 100-150 rounds I'd say it shit until then I'll reserve my judgment.
@@anthonyknight170 do you need a published peer reviewed study or something? Based on the fact that gun people just know when a gun is to much money and not reliable enough. IF you take the time to read reviews of guns and go shooting some yourself, you would understand that what kodiakkeith said is true. For example there tons of guns in the $400-600 price point that are dead nuts reliable.
It's baffling to me how Hudson thought that people wouldn't mind a 2000 round product lifespan. That's about a years shooting, if you're regularly at the range. I do a box of 50 per week at least 40 weeks per year. Boom, gun finished, 1200 bucks down the drain. Astonishing!
Most people don't have the luxury of shooting that often.
They thought they were selling a safe queen
@@slade9372 Those people don't buy $1200 pistols
I'm so jealous of your lifestyle 🥲
@slade9372 well considering the number of handguns Hudson got back for repair I'm guessing you are wrong
I used to work with a family member of some of the guys who developed the H9 who was super excited about. It was neat to get to hear a little inside baseball about something being developed and I was looking forward to seeing early drawings.
As soon as I saw it, I stated it was a solution looking to solve a problem that wasn't really there. It was a cool thought experiment, but it would ultimately fail. They got rather angry with me and said replied with "Well what do you know!?".
Years later, said former co-worker bragged when it was the darling of shot show. I said, "wait for it"
The guy has not spoken to me since they crapped the bed.
Steyr M9 had the best “low bore axis” geometry, IMO
PSA Rock 5.7 has a nice, low bore axis, coupled with a low-recoil round. The Beretta PX4 series also has a fairly low bore axis, and the rotating barrel system mitigated recoil nicely, especially in 9mm.
PX4 mentioned. Really cool and underrated pistols.
The Beretta has an extremely high bore axis, you on the same page? Lol
i saw a steyr m9 a few years back and thought it looked really cool and felt really comfortable, then i watched some shooting reviews and said "H e ll NO!" what a pos.
What a classic mistake . I forgot what it used to be called but killing your sales with your own product should be called "a Hudson "
You should Google what happened to the Osborne computer
@@GhostC10 And later to Nokia. Nokia pulled the same trick BUT they abandoned every phone in the development pipeline. It killed Nokia and the pieces got bought by Microsoft.
@GhostC10 that's the name . Thank you.
This is already a thing and it is called getting Munson'd 🎳 🎳 🎳
@finalmidnight Nokia was killed by smart phones. Not the same.
You can really see the difference in engineering in how each pistol ejects brass. DD seems to eject always in the same way, consistent action. Original Hudson all over the place.
Man I was about to buy an H9 before my old car went. Glad I missed that bullet.
3:49 Hi-Point has legendary customer service and solid durability. Hi-point is the gun that you buy when your grand kids are going to need something to flash at the parole officer 70 years later. Hi-point might have outdated magazines, terrible ergonomics, horrible aesthetics and brutal recoil; but you best be sure that hipoint is meant to last through a lifetime of poor choices.
That should be an advertisement for them
Well, with a product that is so cheaply made it is easy to have good customer service. Someone sends something in with a problem, you just replace it.
So, like a Glock but cheaper?
I have had a couple of HiPoints over the lastb3 decades. I do not argue with buyers, because I understand the practicality of the firearm. However, I believe that a firearms company should build its reputation on the gun, not the customer service. Yes, customer service is awesome, but it makes more sense for a firearm company to be known for good guns.
@@wingracer1614 True, but good customer service is appreciated with every product and there are a lot of companies that utterly fail at customer service even with ostensibly cheaper products. Heck, dealing with microsoft customer service is borderline impossible even when you're trying to do something that costs no money whatsoever.
Damn, I have been exposed as a rock dweller
Ditto
@@stitch626aloha 🪨🪨🪨🪨👀🪨🪨🪨
Thanks Ian , always loved the original Hudson….almost bought one at Nations Gun Show in chantilly, VA back in 2018 , but something told me it wasn’t ready yet…so I waited then they disappeared….glad DD brought it back …
It's reminiscent of the issues the UK had with the SA80 and the changes HK engineers made.
The tiny differences and the understanding of materials that make a huge difference to the end product
Hudson...always make sure your development and marketing teams are on the same page.
For real. To go from an absolute darling in the gun community after ShotShow to going out of business is such an unbelievable sequence of missteps and errors in judgement. What a shame.
@@SpiderGeometry From Shotshow to sh1tshow!
More like: Hudson, trying to run before learning how to walk. The concept was good, as this Daniel Defense H9 proves, but oh man, did Hudson f*** up. Selling a gun that is essentially still in the Beta stage and ignoring all the problems is already a bad thing. But then to grenade your sales by announcing an aluminium version of the same gun must take first price for worst decision ever. And it's a shame: Cy and Lauren Hudson seemed really nice people, but they simply had no business sense.
Thank you Ian, very cool!
i dont know. the DD H9 dosent have the same vibe for me that the original has
The new one completely lost the vibe of the original. The redesigned trigger guard and dust cover no longer have the Sci Fi vibe of the original.
This has 100% made people less interested, myself included.
Yeah the original h9 looked like something out of a scifi show. The DD h9 looks pretty standard. They should have just done a Glock clone or went for a HK p7 knockoff as the patent has expired. Whoop whoop
_"A company that went bankrupt due to issues not directly connected with the quality of the gun."_
WELLL... we could talk about that. The original Hudson H9 was absolutely _rife_ with defects. And the Daniel Defense fell very, _VERY_ short of solving them all.
I lived the idea of the Hudson, but i was one of the "ill get the aluminum frame ones." But now I'm excited about this.
Lot of people hate on Daniel Defense for one reason or another. Gotta give them respect for reviving the dumpster fire that was the Hudson H9. Definitely plenty of other handguns in the price range of the DD H9 that are far superior, but it is a cool handgun.
Didn't know people hated Daniel Defence
@@aaronwilkinson8963 overpriced for what you get. they sell 800 dollar rifles dressed up in their weird looking stock and special mags and then charge 2k for it lmao
It will take DD more than a decade to get their investment back because armchair gun buyers will want a completely new design for $700 or less. No lessons will be learned.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 overpriced, they charge 2k for a 1000 dollar gun basically. paying for the name. can build a superior rifle for half the cost easily.
@@nathanatramp what is an "armchair gun buyer"? Fact of the matter is any "new" firearm coming to market needs to provide some significant advantage over established competition to be successful, and I don't see this bringing one at it's price point.
I would love to see a lcp2 sized version of this stylish of a gun , I really do like the look of the gun a lot.
My bias here is that I am liking the non-skeleton triggers better though.
Rate of failures is unacceptable.
Looks like this gun is still in beta. They probably sent Ian the best one too imagine the one average joe will get
... all that engineering to arrive at a bore axis barely smaller than a CZ/tangfolio/jericho 941.
"I'm rambling." That's why we watch your videos, Ian :)
Congratulations to Daniel Defense. You bought a pistol (design) a had to redo more than 95% of it. Looks like the only thing you got any use out of was the H9 name. I hope you got a really good price for so small a purchase.
Reliability on the Daniel defense one was very unimpressive
Maybe it just needs breaking in.
@@Hibernicus1968 A $1300 pistol really shouldn't require a break-in period...
@@Cakeyflour In a perfect world, no, but _all_ new products have bugs to be worked out. _All_ manufacturers face a learning curve when manufacturing something new. This is why it has been received wisdom for my whole lifetime that you don't by the first year production of a new model car; you're going be beta testing the product. That's life in the real world.
@@Cakeyflour One could argue that higher end and expensive pistols are usually made to tighter tolerances and are more prone to require a break in period.
I feel like the kind of people who would want this pistol already have the P01 (probably cajunized). But those who don’t like DA/SA or hammer fired guns would welcome it less the price tag.
The Hudson H9 looked cool and different with that large dust cover. It looked a little sci-fi. Daniel Defense fixed the problems, but in doing so made it look like any other 9mm on the market, and at the price of $1,300.00. It has a lot of competition. $200 more and you can have a FK BRNO PSD-C that can convert between 9mm 10mm and 7.5 FK rounds, scratch the itch for a different looking cool gun, and get to shoot the 7.5 FK round with it's interesting characteristics.
6:49 not rambling, giving greater context & insight
ah yes, when the gun costs more to shoot then the ammo at 1000 rounds, $1.20 for each shot if it makes it to 1000
Normally this is a potentially useful metric, but 9x19 is a huge cost outlier. I can get 9x19 for 14c/round, so does that mean any 9mm pistol over $140 is a bad deal?
@@ForgottenWeapons Where are you getting 9x19 for 14¢/round? Can you share which site to google?
@@ForgottenWeapons Where? Lowest I have found in the last two years is 18c/rd.
Gosh, you're so informative Ian. I had no idea Hudson's had such issues!
The company didn't survive long enough for the deeper problems to show themselves.
The problem with the entire handgun market is that they are just difficult to shoot. Creating something that can shoot demonstrably better than the Glock is nearly impossible due to shooter limitation. What small performance gains can be squeezed out are then negated by price, aftermarket size, and track record.
What they did is awesome- handguns are just SO challenging.
You probably think they are challenging because you like Glock. They suck ass. Mainly the trigger and grip angle. And I've put thousands through one for work. It takes so much focus and effort to shoot one well.
Now the M&P. Effortless. Easy. Feels like an extension of my body. Feels like shooting with cheat codes enabled if you're used to Glock. M17, M9, 1911. Almost anything else is simpler and more intuitive to shoot than a Glock. If you want a really nice experience try a 2011. Try something better and see if you still find pistol shooting difficult.
@ you missed the point of my comment. No matter how good you shoot a pistol, you won’t be printing sub MOA groups at 100.
Most people struggle to keep it in the A-zone at 7yds in a range lane much less on a timer.
At that level, the difference between how good the platforms are is erased.
This has nothing to do with my bias or preference… sales numbers don’t lie.
It sounds like you have a personal preference, and good on you for improving your shooting. Most people don’t. And most gun companies are for profit enterprises so the market (primarily people who never shoot) dictates what gets made.
low bore axis and straight pull trigger in a striker platform is the selling point I think
The jams and failures to fire are merely sauce for the goose
The original may be a worse gun over all, but it looks better! The new one just looks like just about any other semi-auto out there!
The problem with Engineering is alot of people with an interest in shooting (motorcyclists are as bad) thinks they are an Engineer, despite no formal training or qaulifications. How difficult can it be? Well, it's medicine difficult. If you can't understand a simple tolerance stack or do a decent FMEA, Firearm design and manufacture isn't for you
My takeaway: The DDH9 locks open on an empty OGH9 magazine. Its own magazines? Not so much.
I'm waiting for that Hi-Point H9 Ian just promised us.
So DD turned the H9 into every other handgun, but kept the price point of a bespoke design. Great work!
People will forget this story and get ALL HYPED in January again... Whats that new thing?! Lessons, guys.
Taking brass to the face is a small price to pay being Ian's camera man. Dream job
It's a tad unsettling that a new review sample has to be first round smacked into battery and doesn't hold open on empty. And multiple malfunctions in 2 mags. L
They bought a pig in a poke.
And thanks Jordan for the Facebook group !
The Momba review/shootin hat jinxed the Hudson review/shooting.
A truly exceptional video Ian. Very educational!
Seems like the H9 still has issues Daniel didn't fix based on chambering the first round and not locking back after the last round.
2:42, a storm of memes will rise from this clip.
Hudson is what happens when you don't hire a single firearms engineer and don't understand metallurgy yourself.
Oh like the SA80!!
And let the engineers do the marketing.
I should stay under a rock. So there will be more forgotten weapons to be found
The only nice thing about the DDH9 was the full refund I got after the gun didnt work and fell apart within 250 rounds.
So I’ve been rolling around snagging one with my discount; The one thing the guys at the shop and myself were wondering about was that connector tab on the guide rod. How robust is that and do I have to worry about it snapping or bending?
In my first experiences with the H9, myself and others at the shop were thrown off by the “upside down” trigger safety while testing one of models DD sent the store. I know I like to put my finger low on the trigger shoe so I wasn’t consistently disengaging the trigger safety. Obviously when I rode it a bit higher that remedied itself.
Yeah, that guide rod tab instantly struck me as a possible weak point.
Damn Daniel
Interesting. As someone who was very excited about the concept of the original Hudson I'm not gonna lie, the level of newly exposed lax engineering in it is disheartening.
Oh cool, Daniel Defence did to the H9 what H+K did to the SA80
Wait.
Are you saying Hudson KNEW their gun had a 2000 round life expectancy and chose to sell it anyway?
Considering many of us can put 1000 rounds a week through a pistol, that’s basically criminal.
5:56 I went on about that when looking at modding some guns to be more drop safe. That trigger dingus doesn't look to follow that design guide. I did some of that on my Canik. Sear mechanism has a long tab to interface with decocker; I cut it off after replacing decocker spring with a roll pin. Also wedge the decocker button in with a piece of tape for friction fit, so it doesn't just fall out when disassembled.
I remember getting my OG H9 during the 600$ bankruptcy sale and I was satisfied at that price for an interesting eclectic pietol. 1200 was always too much for an unproven product that was quickly found to have durability issues by competition shooters.
I note that the original is able to make it through a whole magazine without issue. Slightly surprised you didn't dwell a little more on the malfunctions, at least until you revealed that they sent you the gun. Is it an issue with the shorter magazine design?
Thank you for doing this comparison. I've been curious about the differences for awhile.
The slide locking open on a still loaded magazine was the reason I got rid of my Kahr PM9.
Buy this because you want an H9. For the money I can think of better, more reliable options. Great content as always.
CZ P01 would like a word about small aluminum frame reliable handguns.
In the pursuit of perfection, everything inevitably moves closer to glock
Glocks would be appealing to me if they had decent ergos, sights, and trigger. Also if they looked cool. Till then, cz 75 and cz p10 lines, and the usp line does it for me.
Way too pricey for me
Still, though I hope to acquire one in the future
Hudson: "How many people are going to actually shoot 2,000 rounds through this?"
Me: "My Kimber Desert Warrior has over 4,000 in 8 months, i buy firearms to shoot them, not to have safe queens."
Still seems a bit buggy. I'd rather have a gun whose handling I don't like (such as a factory Glock), but which shoots reliably right out of the box.
They solved the surprise bang issue, and it sounds like they solved the early breakage issues, which is good - that's hurdles 1 & 3 on the track.
And the accuracy seems acceptable (certainly better than the initial occaisional keyhole), which is hurdle 4.
But they don't seem to have cleared the *second* hurdle - gun that works reliably.
I once had a Taurus Millennium that I bought from a friend who really needed cash. It exhibited *better* reliability (it only malfed once per magazine). I *still* held on to that gun until the factory did a recall, because I didn't want to have it on my conscience if I sold it and someone tried to rely on it to save their life.
My respect for holding on to the gun! 🫡
Tragic what happened to Hudson
Another case of the Osborne Effect.
Archon type b is my favorite gun
28:03 *click* "I counted that, and knew what was going to happen." 🤣
DD just adopted a M&P 9 2.0 15 rd compact mag in the H9.
Seems like the Hudson is more refined by your trip to the range 😂
Shakespeare might say "Methinks there's an elephant in the room" given the number of malfunctions we all saw which got no comment from Ian. Perhaps the H9 isn't broken in yet, but the number and types of malfunctions indicate much deeper problems which likely won't go away on their own. The usual cause of this is a lack of engineering in depth, ie not creating enough design margin for assured reliability which is essentially the same thing Hudson did. At least Ian didn't edit the malfunctions out so if WYSIWYG then it might be wise to trust your eyes with this one.
In this video the original Hudson H9 seemed to have noticeably less muzzle flip and recoil than the new Daniel Defense version.
I had to set James Reeves straight that YOU are the only US spokesman for Royal Armouries. LOL!
26:10 We got Ian saying WOMP WOMP WOMP before gta6 ☠☠☠
Daniel Defense vastly improved the lethality by having the bullets come out sideways. Bigger bullet holes.
The original H9 still looks better. It's a shame DD didn't want to keep the silhouette while improving the other areas.
I wasn’t expecting an overview of basic engineering subjects today
I'm not an engineer; but I have little faith that the little tooth that actuates the recoil spring is going to last much more than 2000 rounds either. I think they just fixed problems by making different problems.
They might feel similar, but they sure don't look similar in firing, Ian. The Hudson looked to have noticeably less apparent muzzle flip. This new DD version has lost a fair bit of the secret sauce that made the Hudson so interesting and seems much more "just another pistol". Seems to need more work, also, unless it was a matter of that particular ammo not playing well with it. That damned Hudson just always looked so good. Pity about all the issues that surrounded them.
Most important quote from this video: “…it’s not an Alien, but…”
What in the Double-Action, Striker fired 1911??
Frankly this looks better than that Specter pistol he looked at a while ago
Another Glock/1911 hybrid
Aren't they both single action?
yeah, need MORE ramblings pls
Almost all of the manufacturers test their products on the purchasers.
Um hk????
@alexanderbolias900 You mean the heavy, bulky, over priced and prone to breakage company.
Two questions
1. Would “Daniel defense“ have been better off, not buying the Hudson pistol and starting their re-engineering journey with another pistol?
2. Considering that “Daniel defense“ hasn’t really been a pistol company so far, why would anyone want to buy an H9 pistol that has had so much engineering put into it that may or may not work over the long-term? The H9 eventually might be a good pistol, it might even be a good pistol today, but it seems risky to invest in it.
The original H9 looks much better than that bland thing
Agreed, the original looks super cool, like a sci fi pistol
It’s like a future 1911.
@@ultrablue2 For me, it looks like Steyr.
Hey, I got that same shirt from the place there!