Chiappa 9mm M1 Carbine

The local Big 5 has a wood stocked Chiappa 9mm M1 Carbine on sale for $619.00 Not too bad a little weapon, but it has two problems:

One is they have scope mount bases built in, on the front of the receiver, and about 3/4 of the way back. It really messes with the lines of the receiver. Other than having a red dot optic, I can see no use for a scope on a 9mm pistol carbine. The second is the slide. OMG, the right side is not bad, but it is balanced on the left side by a large block of steel, forming a "U" shape around the open top of the action. It is absolutely FUGLY!!!!!! Overall, the weapon has a similar feel to the carbine. It has an adjustable rear sight, has a bayonet lug barrel band, and the stock is a close copy. It just doesn't feel "right," though, and has a funny balance to it.

It apparently uses Beretta 92 magazines. I wish it used Glock magazines, or even S&W Model 59/5900/669/6906 etc. mags. I have tons of both types.

For $600, I could get a nice, clean used Marlin Camp 9 (nice little weapons) and use my S&W mags!

Here is a picture of the left side. Apparently, early versions did not have this monstrosity on the left side, according to early pictures I have seen.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...t68gxfz6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zgpcsozt-1.jpg

As you can see from the pictures, the stock is at least 1/2" or more wider at the receiver to accommodate the wide slide assembly. Here's a picture of an early release of the 9mm version, WITHOUT THE FUGLY THING! The stock is more like a standard M1 carbine stock.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...trnujhwf-1.jpg

How many parts are plastic?

Pretty Cool for a 9mm Rifle. Using the WW2 Stock Configuration makes it look Old Fashion and Super Nice rather than these oddly shaped Synthetic Stocks that i've seen in 9mm Rifles. If it uses Beretta Mags you can get those in 30 Rounds and have some fun. ( if there legal to have in your Stste). Here in Texas i would love to shoot that at the Ranch. I can find some use for it..But I opted for the Zastava PAP M85 .223/5.56 to get rid of those Pesky Wild Hogs that seem to tear up everything.

Frank
S F

I'd like one of the Marlin rifles or the Ruger PC4 even better in .40. Very solid if a bit heavy. Take a look at those for hogs Frank...you could use the long mags down there.

When I worked at Bellevue, WA PD, I actually did an evaluation on the Marlin Camp 9 as a possible patrol carbine. We carried model 59s, so mags would have been a snap. I really liked it. It was easy to shoot, accurate, and handled like an M1 Carbine. The thing that killed the idea though, was mostly that they were a bitch to break down and clean. NOT user friendly in that regard. I would love to get one. That is about the only firearm left on my want list now. I had a lead on one for $400, but the seller refused to ship to California.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

How many parts are plastic?

---

I've got the same question. Does it have about the same in the way of "iron" sights as the .22LR version? - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

they were a bitch to break down and clean.

---

I think the PC4 is too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

How many parts are plastic?

---

I think just the rear sight and trigger/magazine housing were plastic.

The early version without the balancing block was not too bad. The new incarnation with the FUGLY slide gizmo, though, is a no-go for me. It just makes me want a Marlin Camp 9 even more! There is a Wichita PD marked Camp 9 carbine on Gunbroker from back in the time period we looked at them in Washington State. For those agencies that used 59/5900 series, the Camp 9 made sense, especially back in the day when no one carried ARs. I carried an M1 carbine there, even though it was not authorized. I carried an M1 Carbine on the SO in California, though, and even qualified with it every time.

If the Chiappa 9mm M1 carbine was better made, it might be good for an outfit carrying Beretta 92s as duty weapons.

I still have a PC4, but also had a PC9 at one time. I enjoyed both at certain ranges and appreciated the light weight and recoil too. I don't think they were too hard to break down, but I wouldn't call it easy either. The M1 carbine is much easier to take apart.

They looked very solid and felt that way too...

Today I seen some high quality photos of the Chiappa M1-9 psoted by the Canadian importer and I had a thought, which I will get to in a moment.

During my search for a Non-Restricted M1 Carbine, these rifles popped up as an option, I had dismissed them based on the magazine selection and apparent recycling of components from their M1-22 offering. Good enough for a .22LR yes, but not in my opinion good enough for a 9mm. I kept looking and gave this a pass.

Back to that thought...

Seeing the photos of the top of this gun made me ask, "what is that monstrosity on the slide!?"

This:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_4995-1.jpg

I thought about it for a moment and realized that this gun is almost certainly straight blow-back and that cast anvil of a block of metal is to provide mass to slow the action cycling. This gun appears to be nothing more than an upsize of the M1-22 which does not have a gas system, and as such is only a visual copy of the real M1 Carbine.

While blowback is ideal for a light recoiling .22, and other dedicated firearms I personally think that using blowback in this example, which attempts replicate a gas operated gun, is being cheap and lazy.

I have a feeling since some M1 carbines can be stripped by just pulling up and out on the op handle, this one doesn't even have the lug to hole it in. They probably made them to just slide back on that rail set...and it's not a rotating bolt, is it? Just a straight blow back so that's the lug set up on top. I'd still like to wring it out and see...

They needed additional mass for the blowback action to cycle property. Early ones looked like a standard M1 Carbine (sort of) withe block on one side. They had reliability and breakage issues, so redesigned it with the ugly, massive op rod.

Makes for a "GOOD" selling point. " The ugly M1", be the first on the block to have one!!

I'd rather have a Kel Tec SUB 2000. I recently got one in .40 and it's a terrific carbine. Small, light, folds up, comes in several magazine-types (Glock, Beretta, S&W). But mainly, designed from scratch to be a pistol-caliber carbine. There was one M1 Carbine variant that was interesting - in .45 Winchester Magnum!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

They probably made them to just slide back on that rail set...and it's not a rotating bolt, is it?

---

I know my M1-22 is not a rotating bolt, and since the receiver appears to be the exact same I would assess there are no locking lugs and the bolt does not rotate

---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

I'd rather have a Kel Tec SUB 2000. I recently got one in .40 and it's a terrific carbine.

---

I agree compared to this Chiappa offering, I have one as well (9mm Glock mag) and aside from a few minor break in issues it has been a handy little gun. For exhibition plinking it can be made to tag 16x16" steel plates with boring regularity.

http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/carbine_chiappa9mm.html