Hi, I thought this would belong in the Milsurp thread due to how it looks and its biggest selling point, namely being an M1 carbine replica.
I thought I would write a post on my Wood stocked Chiappa M1-9 and write a short review to showcase it. I'm just a regular joe so don't look to me as an authority about telling if this gun is good or not. I thought I would give a more detailed write up than “it’s good” or “it’s terrible”.
This rifle was purchased from SFRC, Theammosource in October 2017 I paid $400 when it was on sale. The serial number range indicates this one was manufactured in 2014.
Brand new the rifle came with 1x10 rd Beretta 92 magazine, the manufacturer is a no-name brand like the magazines sold by Corwin arms. I purchased separately the Mec gar Beretta 92 Magazines. Because this is a center fire rifle using handgun/pistol magazines it can hold 10 rds of 9mm legally. I have not personally tried a Beretta 96 .40S&W magazine where you might be able to get 13-14 rds of 9mm legally.
Basic Stats:
Non-restricted
Capacity: Beretta M92 hand gun magazines 10 rounds
Caliber: 9mm Luger, 9x19
Operation: Straight Blowback
Grooves: 6
Twist rate: 1 in 16
Barrel length: 19”
Overall length: 36”
Weight 5.9 lbs
Safety: Rotating, pointing down safe, parallel to barrel fire
Overall appearance
Overall the M1-9 is a not that similar to the M1 carbine because of the [large heavy blowback \(BB\) unit mounted on the bolt](https://i.imgur.com/FlEGOWv.jpg). More of the M1-9 is metal compared to the M1-22, the front sight, rear sight, magwell, Op rod, trigger housing are all metal. The only polymer part is the bayonet lug. It is styled on a Post WW2 arsenal reworked carbine; adjustable rear sights, bayonet lug, and rotating safety.
Overall it kind of looks like the M1 carbine from 5 feet away, but the ugly blow back unit and the magwell distinctly make it stand out as not an M1 Carbine.
Fit and finish — how well everything works, and if there are any defects
There are several key points to note with this replica that everyone should know.
First this carbine was built using metric measurements, that 9mm is larger than .30 carbine, and it was built with a blowback action instead of a gas operated rotating bolt. Thus very few parts will easily fit on this replica. The only easy upgrade would be to hand fit a USGI rearsight, which might be better (more on that later)
"Plastic" or Polymer, everyone makes a big deal about polymer but in this case with the M1-9 the only polymer part is the bayonet lug which is not critical to function
The sights are to scale with the original carbine, but 9mm has different ballistics I have mine set to “250 yards” to get POA and POI at 50 yards. I have fired this out to a max 50 yards, I could put 10 rounds into a 12x12 target so not the best accuracy but I think it would suffice as a 25-50 yard plinker, it’s not a 1 MOA rifle but it will hit man sized target paper at 50 yards easily and maybe even at 100 yards.
Something to keep in mind is this is a 9mm blowback rifle that has an open top breech you must always wear eye protection as if the breech opens too fast the blowback may hit your face due to the open top.
The USGI sling does not fit on the M1-9 without filing the stock cutout, it is just a couple of mm too small.
The rear sight is also more rearward to accommodate the standard scope dovetail on the receiver this allows you to mount scopes rings and scopes.
Warning Rear sight fitment
This M1-9 has the rear sight held in by a set screw that holds the sight in by friction between the sight and receiver. This isn’t the most secure mounting and the rear sight can loosen itself out of position due to the heavy recoil of the 9mm BB unit.
I remedied this by loctiting the screw with blue Loctite which holds the screw more securely so it doesn’t back out. It is advised by loctite to prime the surfaces as the screw is made of steel while the rear sight is made of aluminum. Dissimilar metals don’t give as good a bond as similar metals so priming is recommended. After fixing the screw in place the rear sight doesn’t wander.
The sights are adjustable for windage and elevation so there is no need to tap or drift the sight with tools.
You can replace the M1-9 rearsight with a USGI sight but you will have to hand fit it to the dovetail.
Ease of use
Using the M1-9 is not easy, the magazine holds 10 rounds but the short bolt travel, heavy weight and recoil spring make for a heavy charging handle to pull back. The Mec-Gar magazines with 10 rounds don’t have enough room to seat properly on a closed bolt. What I do is insert the magazine, pull the bolt back, push the mag to lock it into place and let the bolt close to chamber the first round. There is no bolt hold open pin as the heavy BB unit basically renders it a moot point. 1st Generation M1-9’s have that pin but later models subsequently dropped it.
Handling characteristics — weight, balance and ergonomics including how the trigger feels
This replica of the M1 carbine weighs 5.9 lbs, (for reference the real carbine weighs 5.2 lbs) this makes it a bit heavier than the real carbine but still well suited for anyone to pick up and shoot. (The CX4 Storm for a PCC reference weighs 5.68 lbs). It's a very easy to point rifle and very simple to hold and use. The trigger has no creep or take up, it hits the wall right on the trigger pull and breaks cleanly. I don’t have a trigger weight gauge but other reviewers have described it as heavy and being close to 10 lbs to break.
Shooting experiences
Since owning this rifle from October 2017, I have shot between 500-1000 rounds of 9mm. I have used F92 no-name magazines, and Mec-Gar Beretta 92 magazines. Both seem to work equally well, and if I can ever find a M96 magazine locally I’ll try it and see if it feeds decently allowing 13-14 rds of 9mm.
EDIT: I did find a Mec-gar Beretta 96 magazine made for .40 S&W, it can fit 13 rounds of 9mm with the 13th round barely holding on since 9mm is slightly thinner than .40 S&W. When I tried to feed and fire with 12 rounds in the gun, it had a very large tendancy to fire a round, eject the 9mm casing, eject a live 9mm, and then chamber a round. The feed lips are too wide and the act of ejecting the spent casing also had enough force to knock out the next 9mm in the magazine. I would not recommend using .40 S&W magazines.
I have fired more than 500 but less than 1000 rounds of 9mm ammo, mostly a mix of 115gr, 124gr, and 147gr all FMJ. I prefer 124 gr ammo, but will be shooting off whatever I have left.
Scorched Brass
This might be common to your brass after firing the M1-9, This means the blowback is opening up the breech while the powder burning is still going on, so scorched 9mm brass might be common. I’ve never had any blowback debris hit me at all so the fugly blowback unit is doing its job and slowing the bolt enough to vent the gas down the barrel.
Failure to Feed
The Biggest problem with this rifle that is often mentioned is the Failure to Feed malfunction. This can be attributed to the magazine design.
The red box shows how the magazine fits in the M1-9, in comparison the blue box shows how most other PCC’s load handgun magazines. The steep feeding angle of the red magazine causes the majority of FTF problems due to trying to feed ammuniton from the magazine so steeply. I haven’t experienced as many FTF’s as TAOFLEDERMAUS did, but it is inherently more finicky with magazines, and ammo when it shouldn’t be.
Favorite feature
Price, M1 carbine look
Least favorite feature
Open top breech, ugly BB unit, Magazine design.
Available accessories
USGI Sling, Any Beretta M92 magazine
Extra Pictures
Open top breech
.30 carbine next to 9mm
Further reading
M1 carbine inc info
Conclusions
It's a decently put together WW2 styled rifle in a common and cheap pistol caliber. It’s not a good rifle, and I would have to say at best its average due to the fact that it has several problems out of the box (rear sight drifting, magazine design). The only saving grace is its price and the current niche PCC market. It retails for $500 (I picked mine up on sale for $400), is non-restricted, uses a decently common handgun magazine, and can be bought in a traditional wood stock look.
The only other NR PCC options start at $800 (and none in wood) and go steadily up in price.
On the restricted side you have
Looking overall at the market availability and price, this is the only cheap no-frills PCC that is NR in Canada. It has its problems, but if you just want a cheap Canadian PCC plinker the Chiappa M1-9 can probably fill that role, due to its price and NR status. I would not hesitate to recommend it as long as you can get one under $450 as that is exactly what it is worth.
But with the Ruger 2017 PC9 around the corner I would suggest waiting until the final price and availability for the PC9 comes out. If the PC9 comes NR and retails for $800 or less with a wood stock there is no reason to consider a M1-9 except for aesthetics but even then, you should buy a M1-22 if you are looking for a more period correct looking carbine in a cheaper caliber.
Album of Pictures
EDIT: Added Hi-point carbine
EDIT2: tested M96 magazine
I thought I would write a post on my Wood stocked Chiappa M1-9 and write a short review to showcase it. I'm just a regular joe so don't look to me as an authority about telling if this gun is good or not. I thought I would give a more detailed write up than “it’s good” or “it’s terrible”.
This rifle was purchased from SFRC, Theammosource in October 2017 I paid $400 when it was on sale. The serial number range indicates this one was manufactured in 2014.
Brand new the rifle came with 1x10 rd Beretta 92 magazine, the manufacturer is a no-name brand like the magazines sold by Corwin arms. I purchased separately the Mec gar Beretta 92 Magazines. Because this is a center fire rifle using handgun/pistol magazines it can hold 10 rds of 9mm legally. I have not personally tried a Beretta 96 .40S&W magazine where you might be able to get 13-14 rds of 9mm legally.
Basic Stats:
Non-restricted
Capacity: Beretta M92 hand gun magazines 10 rounds
Caliber: 9mm Luger, 9x19
Operation: Straight Blowback
Grooves: 6
Twist rate: 1 in 16
Barrel length: 19”
Overall length: 36”
Weight 5.9 lbs
Safety: Rotating, pointing down safe, parallel to barrel fire
Overall appearance
Overall the M1-9 is a not that similar to the M1 carbine because of the [large heavy blowback \(BB\) unit mounted on the bolt](https://i.imgur.com/FlEGOWv.jpg). More of the M1-9 is metal compared to the M1-22, the front sight, rear sight, magwell, Op rod, trigger housing are all metal. The only polymer part is the bayonet lug. It is styled on a Post WW2 arsenal reworked carbine; adjustable rear sights, bayonet lug, and rotating safety.
Overall it kind of looks like the M1 carbine from 5 feet away, but the ugly blow back unit and the magwell distinctly make it stand out as not an M1 Carbine.
Fit and finish — how well everything works, and if there are any defects
There are several key points to note with this replica that everyone should know.
First this carbine was built using metric measurements, that 9mm is larger than .30 carbine, and it was built with a blowback action instead of a gas operated rotating bolt. Thus very few parts will easily fit on this replica. The only easy upgrade would be to hand fit a USGI rearsight, which might be better (more on that later)
"Plastic" or Polymer, everyone makes a big deal about polymer but in this case with the M1-9 the only polymer part is the bayonet lug which is not critical to function
The sights are to scale with the original carbine, but 9mm has different ballistics I have mine set to “250 yards” to get POA and POI at 50 yards. I have fired this out to a max 50 yards, I could put 10 rounds into a 12x12 target so not the best accuracy but I think it would suffice as a 25-50 yard plinker, it’s not a 1 MOA rifle but it will hit man sized target paper at 50 yards easily and maybe even at 100 yards.
Something to keep in mind is this is a 9mm blowback rifle that has an open top breech you must always wear eye protection as if the breech opens too fast the blowback may hit your face due to the open top.
The USGI sling does not fit on the M1-9 without filing the stock cutout, it is just a couple of mm too small.
The rear sight is also more rearward to accommodate the standard scope dovetail on the receiver this allows you to mount scopes rings and scopes.
Warning Rear sight fitment
This M1-9 has the rear sight held in by a set screw that holds the sight in by friction between the sight and receiver. This isn’t the most secure mounting and the rear sight can loosen itself out of position due to the heavy recoil of the 9mm BB unit.
I remedied this by loctiting the screw with blue Loctite which holds the screw more securely so it doesn’t back out. It is advised by loctite to prime the surfaces as the screw is made of steel while the rear sight is made of aluminum. Dissimilar metals don’t give as good a bond as similar metals so priming is recommended. After fixing the screw in place the rear sight doesn’t wander.
The sights are adjustable for windage and elevation so there is no need to tap or drift the sight with tools.
You can replace the M1-9 rearsight with a USGI sight but you will have to hand fit it to the dovetail.
Ease of use
Using the M1-9 is not easy, the magazine holds 10 rounds but the short bolt travel, heavy weight and recoil spring make for a heavy charging handle to pull back. The Mec-Gar magazines with 10 rounds don’t have enough room to seat properly on a closed bolt. What I do is insert the magazine, pull the bolt back, push the mag to lock it into place and let the bolt close to chamber the first round. There is no bolt hold open pin as the heavy BB unit basically renders it a moot point. 1st Generation M1-9’s have that pin but later models subsequently dropped it.
Handling characteristics — weight, balance and ergonomics including how the trigger feels
This replica of the M1 carbine weighs 5.9 lbs, (for reference the real carbine weighs 5.2 lbs) this makes it a bit heavier than the real carbine but still well suited for anyone to pick up and shoot. (The CX4 Storm for a PCC reference weighs 5.68 lbs). It's a very easy to point rifle and very simple to hold and use. The trigger has no creep or take up, it hits the wall right on the trigger pull and breaks cleanly. I don’t have a trigger weight gauge but other reviewers have described it as heavy and being close to 10 lbs to break.
Shooting experiences
Since owning this rifle from October 2017, I have shot between 500-1000 rounds of 9mm. I have used F92 no-name magazines, and Mec-Gar Beretta 92 magazines. Both seem to work equally well, and if I can ever find a M96 magazine locally I’ll try it and see if it feeds decently allowing 13-14 rds of 9mm.
EDIT: I did find a Mec-gar Beretta 96 magazine made for .40 S&W, it can fit 13 rounds of 9mm with the 13th round barely holding on since 9mm is slightly thinner than .40 S&W. When I tried to feed and fire with 12 rounds in the gun, it had a very large tendancy to fire a round, eject the 9mm casing, eject a live 9mm, and then chamber a round. The feed lips are too wide and the act of ejecting the spent casing also had enough force to knock out the next 9mm in the magazine. I would not recommend using .40 S&W magazines.
I have fired more than 500 but less than 1000 rounds of 9mm ammo, mostly a mix of 115gr, 124gr, and 147gr all FMJ. I prefer 124 gr ammo, but will be shooting off whatever I have left.
Scorched Brass
This might be common to your brass after firing the M1-9, This means the blowback is opening up the breech while the powder burning is still going on, so scorched 9mm brass might be common. I’ve never had any blowback debris hit me at all so the fugly blowback unit is doing its job and slowing the bolt enough to vent the gas down the barrel.
Failure to Feed
The Biggest problem with this rifle that is often mentioned is the Failure to Feed malfunction. This can be attributed to the magazine design.
The red box shows how the magazine fits in the M1-9, in comparison the blue box shows how most other PCC’s load handgun magazines. The steep feeding angle of the red magazine causes the majority of FTF problems due to trying to feed ammuniton from the magazine so steeply. I haven’t experienced as many FTF’s as TAOFLEDERMAUS did, but it is inherently more finicky with magazines, and ammo when it shouldn’t be.
Favorite feature
Price, M1 carbine look
Least favorite feature
Open top breech, ugly BB unit, Magazine design.
Available accessories
USGI Sling, Any Beretta M92 magazine
Extra Pictures
Open top breech
.30 carbine next to 9mm
Further reading
M1 carbine inc info
Conclusions
It's a decently put together WW2 styled rifle in a common and cheap pistol caliber. It’s not a good rifle, and I would have to say at best its average due to the fact that it has several problems out of the box (rear sight drifting, magazine design). The only saving grace is its price and the current niche PCC market. It retails for $500 (I picked mine up on sale for $400), is non-restricted, uses a decently common handgun magazine, and can be bought in a traditional wood stock look.
The only other NR PCC options start at $800 (and none in wood) and go steadily up in price.
- keltec sub 2000 at $800
- TNW M31 suomi $800
- the JR carbine, TNW Aero at 1k
- the Beretta CX4 at 1.2k
- Thureon Defense 1.3k+
- the CZ Evo 1.5k+
- Kriss Vector 1.8k+
On the restricted side you have
- Hi-point carbines $430
- AR-15’s in 9mm starting around 1k+
- Sig MPX 2.3k+
Looking overall at the market availability and price, this is the only cheap no-frills PCC that is NR in Canada. It has its problems, but if you just want a cheap Canadian PCC plinker the Chiappa M1-9 can probably fill that role, due to its price and NR status. I would not hesitate to recommend it as long as you can get one under $450 as that is exactly what it is worth.
But with the Ruger 2017 PC9 around the corner I would suggest waiting until the final price and availability for the PC9 comes out. If the PC9 comes NR and retails for $800 or less with a wood stock there is no reason to consider a M1-9 except for aesthetics but even then, you should buy a M1-22 if you are looking for a more period correct looking carbine in a cheaper caliber.
Album of Pictures
EDIT: Added Hi-point carbine
EDIT2: tested M96 magazine
Last edited:
