It might be interesting if it had a nice SAO trigger.

DD had about 8 or more on display at SHOT. While I love DD stuff, I was really not impressed with the pistol. I did not shoot it, but did dry fire it a lot and the trigger is not as good as I would have expected from DD.
Cp

No offense, but your opinion means absolutely nothing if you didn't shoot it.

There’s been a lot of people including those that did shoot it talking about the trigger not being that good. But it’s a duty style striker gun with no safety. A few Gucci gunners who want a 2 pound trigger versus the 95% of people who are used to a long 6 pound Glock trigger. They seem to have split the difference.

Ok buddy, run along now, the grown ups are talking….

Cp

I would agree with that. I wasn’t expecting a match trigger or anything, I just expected a little better from DD especially at that price point. The trigger safety “dongle” is at the top of the trigger. Almost an upside down Smith and Wesson M&P or Glock except different because the safety is the same width as the trigger itself and not just the center of the trigger or a hinged design. It feels like part of the take up, which is nice.
I dry fired 6 different ones they were very consistent. I also stopped by on Thursday after probably 5000 triggers pulls had been done on them by everyone there. Seemed about the same on the 3 I dry fired again.
Cp

It should be interesting to see it evolve. In my head I picture a variant with a threaded barrel and comp that matches the slide profile with a magwell, bigger mags, and a lighter trigger.

With how flat they look to shoot in videos I would hope this is the basic model with more to come.

The Rep I spoke to several times, told me just that. There is more planned for the platform but he was very tight lipped about it, which is to be expected. He did hint at a low profile Magwell “may” be in the worx.
Cp

How does the recoil compare to like a Glock or XD or something like that?

I pick mine up tomorrow, but I’m starting to get a meh feeling about the mounting plates.  I found a pic on line with an SRO mounted and the plate is thick as hell!  I really hope the DD folks didn’t screw up and gave us a shit mounting system.  If the optic can’t get low into the slide, that would be a major mistake and deal killer for me.

I’ll be using an Sig Romeo X as soon as DD gets me my plate and I’ll report back.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Handguns/Daniel-Defense-H9-Optic-Mounting-System-is-a-Let-Down/4-212386/

To be fair, everything he’s complaining about is pretty much industry standard. He used Sig as an example, but no one wants their red dots so you still need a plate for an RMR pattern.

Admittedly, there's only the Echelon and I think maybe one other mounting system that kind of get around plates, but plates are one of the reasons that I haven't been able to get into pistol red dots. So, even if the complaint is near universal, it doesn't mean that it is still not valid to want a better system.

AND for $1300, I can understand why someone would want/expect something better.

I’d be pissed if a $1300 pistol came cut for Shield or Holosun crap.

This

It's a new full size gun. It's 2024. It should be built for RMR footprint. Everything else is gay and stupid.

I'd be pissed if my $1300 pistol needed a proprietary mounting plate to mount an RMR.

This 225%

To be fair, you're not understanding my complaint.  Damn near every gun can get screws directly into the slide.  The industry standard is not a slide plate with screw locations that make it impossible to get at least one kind of optic to get screws into the slide.

Take the P320 since you mentioned a plate for the RMR.  The plate you need to get an RMR onto an sig is merely a filler plate.  Your screws still go through the optic and then directly into the slide, the plate fills in the gap only.  You want to put an optic on a Staccao, yes you need a plate, but again, it's a filler plate and the screws go through the optic and into the slide.  Shadow Systems, no pate needed, screws through the optic and into the slide.  CZ, through the optic and into the slide.  I'm trying to think what else, but all my pistols, even with plates, still go through the optic holes and directly down into the slide.

This is not the case with the H9.  The screws that go through the optic cannot, will no, do not, go down into the slide.  They only go into the plate below it; then the plate below the optic is screwed into the slide with a separate set of screws in front of the optic screws.  Hence, to hold an optic with two screw holes onto the gun, you need four screws.  That is not at all industry standard and why I was bitching in that thread.  The thread engagement holding the optic on is very little.  It's dumb and not acceptable.  James Reeves recently released a burn down video on the H9 and mentioned this very issue.  His RMR kept coming lose.

FCD Glock plates are sight to base, base to slide for example.  It's pretty normal and not an issue apparently.

I think the H9 is getting undeserved criticism, sounds more like buyers remorse and looking for a way to justify not liking it.

The Glock MOS does use that system, but it's widely complained about and agreed to be outdated and outclassed; if that's the argument in favor, ok, but I thought we all agreed that was trash.  Their slim line guns don't have the same issue though, they made those so you can go directly from the optic into the slide.  

As for buyer's remorse, what?  why?  I have hundreds of guns.  literarily hundreds.  Buyers remorse isn't something I worry about.  It's a shit plate system on a newly designed pistol and I think people should know about it when making their decision to buy.  I have no agenda other than to make sure folks know what the optic mounting system is...and more importantly isn't.  I was dumbfounded when I realized what they had done.  Had I known, I wouldn't' have bought the gun, but the $1,300 isn't material, it's the subpar mounting options that annoy me.  I am actually a certified Daniel Defense fan-boy when it comes to their AR's.  I love them and have a bunch.  Their customer service is unlike anything I've ever used before.  I broke the ear off a lower changing out the trigger guard; 100% my fault and they replaced it for me at no cost!  I've got no axe to grind with DD.

If DD ever offers it with an ACRO, shield or DPP (for the Sig Romeo X Pro) direct mill, then I'll buy another.  Hardly buyer's remorse.

Glock MOS sure, but I don't see any criticism of the FCD Glock plates.   Pretty sure my M17 was the same way as well, and I think the 226 was the same.  If it's direct thread to the slide then it's designed for just one optic footprint, not universal.

The M9A4 looks way worse than the H9 and I haven't noticed complaints there (not really looking but not looking for the H9 either).  

No matter what DD did here it would make people mad, this is arfcom after all.

To be fair, I'm not a fan of the H9, just pointing out they seem to be getting undeserved criticism here by doing what other very popular handgun companies are doing.

Their first handgun.
Glock fucked up the rollout of the Gen4.
SIG arsed the first P365s.
For a self defense piece, 2 years in full production per mark/generation, wide distribution and enthusiastic acceptance...then test thoroughly.

I like weird guns, and aluminum frames so I'm interested. For a new design (well, not new, but newly released outside of a beta test) with an optic cut and metal frame the price is entirely reasonable. Despite using a peculiar mag design they aren't that expensive, especially when compared with mag prices for the widely adopted P320.

I'll wait to see how the reliability and durability on these turns out to be.




People complain about the the Beretta plates (a lot actually), but they really aren't that tall, they look like that from the side because the top of the slide is rounded so the sides of the plate actually hang below the top of the slide-which also gives the optic screws plenty of thread to bite into. On a 92 slide there isn't a lot of meat to cut lugs and threads into without running into other parts.

The Langdon cut is lower but then you're cutting into the extractor pin, and IMHO it doesn't really make a difference from behind the gun.

Glock's MOS is very good, the ridge that parallels the bore and the channel under the plate prevent the plate from shifting laterally and rotating.  SIG's implementation is not nearly as good, frequent changes to the footprint, and very little is done to prevent the plate from moving and rotating.

A system that uses plates allows for modularity.  G43X/G48 MOS pocket is milled for direct mounting of RMSc, to use an RMRcc, RMR or ACRO (we're making one), an adapter plate is required, it then allows different optics to be used on the G43X.

The less than stellar reputation MOS got is mostly attributed to the OEM Glock plates and numerous aftermarket plates with poor tolerances and flawed designs.  To wit, without a competent plate for the system, the solution is incomplete, regardless of how good the host weapons and sights are..  Both can be very good, if they do use a plates system, they need plates that won't loosen the sight to plate screws and fling the optic at the shooter's face.  We're very comfortable and confident with Glock's MOS, poorly toleranced plates that can't keep the sights on the plates from moving gave MOS a reputation that it doesn't deserve.

I keep seeing things popping up on my YT feed and on Reddit about various issues with the H9. I haven’t been following it very closely. Is DD dropping the ball on the H9?



https://www.reddit.com/r/Danieldefense/s/ndLkjeZ5ws

Yeah it seems like they’re having some teething issues.

Ideal for 9x19mm snake shot loads.

I just picked mine up, hopefully I'll get to shoot it tomorrow. If there's problems with the barrel, I'm sure Daniel Defense will have replacements available. I still don't like the optics mounting platform though.

I've noticed that the edges of the backstrap, where they join to the rest of the frame, are quite sharp. That's a silly design flaw to have missed.

Shot mine today, put 200 rounds through it. Not a single stoppage or malfunction of any kind, and I didn't even oil the pistol out of the box, just shot it as is. All FMJ 115 grain, brass.

That said, it's not all good. The pistol shows some clear amateur design choices. The manual shows a traditional sight picture where the tip of the front sight blade is where the round impacts, yet the actual location of impact was extremely low. And when I say extremely, I mean like off the target low. I definitely need a taller rear sight, as the front sight is already pretty much as low as it's going to get.
The manual says that the pistol is compatible with Sig P series sights, but it doesn't say which ones. I'm going to guess #8? Since it shoots so low, I'll start there and work my way up as needed I suppose.
Also, my rear sight was clearly visually off-center in the slide from the factory, despite the claim (also in the manual) that the pistol was zeroed at 25 yards. This obviously caused point of impact to be off to one side.
I did not get a good feel for the accuracy because of this, but at least it wasn't keyhole-ing like I've seen others have an issue with.

Besides the sight issues, my palm would intermittently activate the slide release, meaning that I would get failures to lock back when empty. It seems that a simple solution to this would be to shorten the slide release so that it does not protrude as far to the rear. Hopefully the aftermarket can help with this.

Also, the trigger is so-so. Again, looking forward to the aftermarket.

Finally, I think the plate system sucks, but I don't necessarily need to mount an optic to this one, as it's more for carry. Not they really should have made it RMR cut.

What's DD's warranty? The POI issue sounds so bad DD may want to take a look at it.

I think they just chose the wrong sights for this thing. The original Hudson shot low because it had that silly combat sight picture thing going on. But this one is far lower. I bought a new set of sights, hopefully that should help the issue.

But with that said, both of the iron sights that came on a gun were off-center. Poor craftsmanship.

Since version 1 was a dud, what is it about this design that made creating version 2 worthwhile?  

I heard that the new models of the H9 put out by Daniel Defense has a number of important, but subtle improvements to the original design.  It looks like a very interesting pistol.

I think the previous suggestion that the pistol be made so that it could use Glock 17 magazines is a most excellent suggestion.  The Glock magazines are cheap, extremely reliable, and readily available almost everywhere.

That's a terrible idea. Bulky magazines that would make it much thicker with no benefit.
The magazine on this is ok. Not a fan of the yellow follower though. Should be darker in order to contrast with brass cases.

Sharpie.

I just see a kinda Hi-Power looking gun and people say the first version was a POS.  Why is version 2 Daniel H9 interesting?  Why is it cool?  Why spend $1300?

1 Daniel Defense

2 Low bore axis

Another issue that I'm finding: while cycling, the slide pushes the next round in the magazine slightly forwards. This means that when ejecting a partial magazine, it will hang up and need to be manually removed.

So... Did DD even test fire this pistol?
These are AMATEUR issues that a vetted pistol should not be having.

The claim is they fired over one million rounds in testing.

Here's my review. Some of this I posted earlier, but it's all here for reference.

I have fired 200 rounds through it and plan on firing more. There were zero stoppages, however I noticed a significant number of design deficiencies, and here are the areas in need of improvement:

Grip- The spot where the frame and the backstrap meet is not well blended. The backstrap beavertail has sharp edges that don't properly line up with the frame. This results in these edges digging into the shooter's hand. I recommend better machining in this area.

Slide stop/release- This extends far back, and I was having intermittent failures to lock back due to interaction with my support hand palm. I believe that the slide stop/release itself should be shortened, so that it does not extend as far to the rear. As is, it is very susceptible to conflicts with modern firing grips.

Barrel/recoil spring- This firearm is far too picky about how the recoil spring nestles into the barrel. A modern pistol should be difficult or impossible to put together incorrectly, not the other way around. I strongly recommend a redesign of this interface so that the pistol cannot be easily reassembled incorrectly.

Magazine- While cycling, the slide tends to push the next round in the magazine forwards slightly while in the pistol. This means that when ejecting a partial magazine, the top round may cause the magazine to fail to eject, requiring manual stripping for removal.
I recommend a redesign of the interior geometry so that the top round in the magazine cannot cause this failure.

Follower- I know that Daniel Defense has a thing for yellow followers, but they don't contrast enough with brass cases, especially when trying to see how many rounds are remaining in the magazine through the witness holes in the back. This follower should be another color.

Manual ejection- when manually unloading the pistol, rounds are particularly difficult to clear from the chamber. They stick on the extractor and this requires sudden force to overcome. This could be a safety or even tactical hazard.

Trigger- it's mediocre. I can live with it, but would really like a stronger reset.

Sights- The Hudson H9 had a similar issue in which it was calibrated for a so-called "combat hold", and therefore POI was low. On the H9, this was remedied with a shorter replacement front sight, but on the Daniel H9, I found that the POI was so low that it was below the torso at 25 yards, and I am not sure that there is a low enough front sight to fix this. Therefore, a taller rear sight would be the next step. I have ordered replacement sights from Trijicon, but it is hard to tell if this will even fix the issue, as they are both a standard Sig #8 height.
In my opinion, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here; pistol sights have been utilized one way for more than a hundred years and it has worked fine. In fact, in the Daniel H9 manual, it even shows that the POI is at the tip of the front sight blade. Intentionally creating a pistol that shoots low, especially that low, is nonsensical. I recommend that the guns just ship with a taller rear sight, or better yet, taller, optic compatible sights.
Additionally, my pistol was not firing center due to sights that were installed visually off-center from the factory. I confirmed this with a set of calipers after the fact. This is a QC issue that should not be present on such a firearm.
Because of these issues, I was not able to properly measure the accuracy of this pistol, however it did not appear to be particularly accurate. This is concerning, as detailed in the next point below.

Barrel- I have seen reports online of the barrel failing to stabilize ammunition, resulting in a "keyhole" effect in which the bullets tumble. This is a serious defect, and if as widespread as I suspect, requires a new barrel for every pistol. My pistol was so hard to group due to the previously mentioned issues with the sights, that I could not get a good judge of the accuracy, but it did not seem particularly accurate. I will be testing this more during future range sessions to see if this is a problem for me as well. Looking through the barrel though, I can see that the rifling is not as crisp or strong as I would expect, which does not instill a lot of confidence. With this rifling design, even slight over-boring would result in the issues with keyholing and accuracy.

Optic plates- optic plates are outdated and inferior to slides that are directly cut for optics. I have not had the ability to mount an optic to this pistol yet because the plates are not yet available, but it appears to be a flawed design from the start. The slide should be RMR cut from the factory, period. This is a modern combat pistol, and should have a durable system for mounting optics, especially with the aforementioned issues with the iron sights.


This pistol is not ready for serious usage, in my opinion. This is yet another example of beta testing by the masses. Hopefully they fix these issues with the next generation.

1 - a company with a good reputation. Check.
2 - yeah, so?  Plenty of more reliable options with a comparable low bore axis
3 - nothing else?

Pass...

Don't know how accurate this is, but Handgunhero makes it look like it is similar to the Hellcat Pro and P365 X-Marco and just a little lower than a Glock or Echelon.

@Scrapple, excellent review. I'm a bit shocked by the number of problems based on DD's reputation and the price point.

I am too. Mine is reliable, so maybe they got that right. But during that 1,000,000 rounds that they supposedly fired, I'm not sure if a human actually handled the pistol, because these are real amateur hour issues.

The pistol has potential. But as it is now, it's far from ready.

I'm with you, particularly w/ the issues coming to light in this thread & online.

It'd be curious to know what the 1 million rounds testing actually means... Was that fired in 5 pistols, 10 pistols, 50 pistols, 100 pistols, etc.?

To me or doesn't matter. Clearly they didn't get enough hands on time with the pistol, because these issues are really basic.

Or, you know, they didn't go full Hackathorn with their testing, and used optics a lot.  As is proper for a 2024 handgun release.

This is what, a $1200-1500 pistol?  If it comes w/ sights, they should be on.

The Ruger Chargers I sell don't come w/ sights, just a Pic rail.

I just got my replacement sights for this pistol. Trijicon DI, for Sig.
HOOLLEEEEE FACK were they a tight fit. Front sight wasn't terrible, but the rear was absurd.
It's on there now... looks centered... I'll try to zero soon, hoping for a positive result.

You want that tight fit. I can’t even begin to count how many peoples sights fly off in classes I’m in. It seems to happen in every other couple of classes. Once you really start putting some rounds through your gun, it heats up and those dovetails expand.