Login System 
IMPORTANT: Please note that you must now log in with your email address and not your username!
ARCHIVED
 wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006  OH, USA
 Posts: 1869 Feedback: 100% (7) |
Posted: 7/20/2012 5:30:20 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT I'm looking for a 9mm and 40 that has a wood stock, something like a M1 30 carbine, any suggests? I was even thinking if it would be possible to convert the 30 carbine to a pistol caliber, but it would be a lot of work. Could the Marlin camp rifle or Ruger PC be fitted in the 30 carbine stock? I think I'm SOL 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 5:51:42 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 6:00:44 PM by vanvideo]
I think many consider the .30 cal. a pistol caliber already. I know at my local range, the .30 cal. is grouped in with the pistol ranges. I think of it more as a PDW caliber.
But a Marlin Camp 9 (or 45) already has a nice wood stock. Never heard of anyone modifying a M1 carbine stock to a Camp 9 or Ruger PC. Why not just get an M1 carbine? They look bad ass with the paratrooper stock. Good repros are available. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:48:58 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 9:49:19 PM by Rocketfish]
You want something you can convert to .30 carbine and fit to a .30 carbine stock? Well youre in luck because an m1 carbine is already both of those - no mod's required.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2012 10:45:49 AM
I think converting the .30 to a pistol caliber (9mm or .40cal) was mentioned.
Vernon |
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1870 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/21/2012 11:20:39 PM
Originally Posted By vanvideo:
I think many consider the .30 cal. a pistol caliber already. I know at my local range, the .30 cal. is grouped in with the pistol ranges. I think of it more as a PDW caliber. But a Marlin Camp 9 (or 45) already has a nice wood stock. Never heard of anyone modifying a M1 carbine stock to a Camp 9 or Ruger PC. Why not just get an M1 carbine? They look bad ass with the paratrooper stock. Good repros are available. Well, I'm looking for one in 9mm and .40, I do have plan on picking up a M1 carbine some time in the near future, yes that do look bad ass, hoping to SBR a M1 carbine to look something like this: 
but for now, would love to get something in 9mm and .40 that's a lot like the M1. |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1871 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/21/2012 11:29:28 PM
Originally Posted By Rocketfish:
You want something you can convert to .30 carbine and fit to a .30 carbine stock? Well youre in luck because an m1 carbine is already both of those - no mod's required. I'm looking for something in 9mm and .40 that is in a wood stock, something like the M1 carbine. Do you guys think it would be possible to fit a camp rifle in a M1 carbine wood stock? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 12:07:58 AM
The camp rifle left the factory with a wood stock. It did not leave the factory, however, in .40S&W.
|
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1876 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 12:24:08 AM
Originally Posted By crazytuco:
The camp rifle left the factory with a wood stock. It did not leave the factory, however, in .40S&W. Yeah, I couldn't get one in .40, but a 9mm might work, if I could get it in a M1 carbine stock, do you think a Beretta M9 magazine could work in the Camp rifle with some fitting (and a lot of profanity)? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 1:40:17 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2012 2:00:21 PM by Mad-Machinist]
not sure about the mag......but I think you might run into additional issues with bolt mass converting a Camp 9 to .40. Higher pressures, greater bolt thrust = more necessary mass in the bolt Slugging it with tungsten might work,....just not famaliar enough with the gun to offer more than conjecture. I think it might be simpler to start from scratch with a tube gun design and fit to a stock blank....
The more I think about it....a 40 wouldn't be that hard in a carbine stock......I have seen builds in 7.62 x 25 in a carbine stock....and it is a much hotter round. Also the .45 Uzi Promag mags work GREAT for .40 conversions....13 rounds in the 10 round mag.......and my .40 AR runs flawlessly with them.....although I was able to scrounge some higher cap 41AE mags for it as well. |
|
|
|
forever4
Firearms aficionado
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2008 KY, USA
Posts: 3197 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 6:08:46 PM
I have a pile of 9mm carbines. Why 9? One simple answer.......$
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1880 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 8:10:23 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
not sure about the mag......but I think you might run into additional issues with bolt mass converting a Camp 9 to .40. Higher pressures, greater bolt thrust = more necessary mass in the bolt Slugging it with tungsten might work,....just not famaliar enough with the gun to offer more than conjecture. I think it might be simpler to start from scratch with a tube gun design and fit to a stock blank.... The more I think about it....a 40 wouldn't be that hard in a carbine stock......I have seen builds in 7.62 x 25 in a carbine stock....and it is a much hotter round. Also the .45 Uzi Promag mags work GREAT for .40 conversions....13 rounds in the 10 round mag.......and my .40 AR runs flawlessly with them.....although I was able to scrounge some higher cap 41AE mags for it as well. The .40, well, I think that I would just have to run with the Ruger PC40 (if I could find one). I'm told that, yes the Beretta magazine would work in the Camp rifle, but the next question is how much work would it take to get it in the M1 carbine stock...? |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1881 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 8:11:50 PM
Originally Posted By forever4:
I have a pile of 9mm carbines. Why 9? One simple answer.......$ Hell Yeah, and the ability to use with my pistol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 9:31:17 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2012 9:37:57 PM by Mad-Machinist]
Originally Posted By wtwining:
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
not sure about the mag......but I think you might run into additional issues with bolt mass converting a Camp 9 to .40. Higher pressures, greater bolt thrust = more necessary mass in the bolt Slugging it with tungsten might work,....just not famaliar enough with the gun to offer more than conjecture. I think it might be simpler to start from scratch with a tube gun design and fit to a stock blank.... The more I think about it....a 40 wouldn't be that hard in a carbine stock......I have seen builds in 7.62 x 25 in a carbine stock....and it is a much hotter round. Also the .45 Uzi Promag mags work GREAT for .40 conversions....13 rounds in the 10 round mag.......and my .40 AR runs flawlessly with them.....although I was able to scrounge some higher cap 41AE mags for it as well. The .40, well, I think that I would just have to run with the Ruger PC40 (if I could find one). I'm told that, yes the Beretta magazine would work in the Camp rifle, but the next question is how much work would it take to get it in the M1 carbine stock...? I WISH I hadn't looked at this thread...  ..I've been trying to work out a design all afternoon that will use a .40 beretta mag and an M1 Carbine stock........pretty much got all the details worked out.... even down to using an AK fire control group......but it can be done.........now to find a used carbine stock fer cheap.....and a .40 beretta mag..........think I have everything else in the parts box and stock metal bins at the shop.............had another idea as well about using a PPSH 41 bolt for a .40 carbine...plenty of mass but it'd eject out the top of the receiver over your head..... |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1882 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 9:45:40 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Originally Posted By wtwining:
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
not sure about the mag......but I think you might run into additional issues with bolt mass converting a Camp 9 to .40. Higher pressures, greater bolt thrust = more necessary mass in the bolt Slugging it with tungsten might work,....just not famaliar enough with the gun to offer more than conjecture. I think it might be simpler to start from scratch with a tube gun design and fit to a stock blank.... The more I think about it....a 40 wouldn't be that hard in a carbine stock......I have seen builds in 7.62 x 25 in a carbine stock....and it is a much hotter round. Also the .45 Uzi Promag mags work GREAT for .40 conversions....13 rounds in the 10 round mag.......and my .40 AR runs flawlessly with them.....although I was able to scrounge some higher cap 41AE mags for it as well. The .40, well, I think that I would just have to run with the Ruger PC40 (if I could find one). I'm told that, yes the Beretta magazine would work in the Camp rifle, but the next question is how much work would it take to get it in the M1 carbine stock...? I WISH I hadn't looked at this thread... ..I've been trying to work out a design all afternoon that will use a .40 beretta mag and an M1 Carbine stock........pretty much got all the details worked out.... even down to using an AK fire control group......but it can be done.........now to find a used carbine stock fer cheap.....and a .40 beretta mag..........think I have everything else in the parts box and stock metal bins at the shop.............had another idea as well about using a PPSH 41 bolt for a .40 carbine...plenty of mass but it'd eject out the top of the receiver over your head.....I didn't think there would be much differences in pressure between the .45 and the .40....maybe I'm wrong |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 9:45:52 PM
Jusy saw this as well............ http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=297035000
|
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1883 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 9:58:41 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Jusy saw this as well............ http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=297035000 Do ya think something like that could be made to fit in a M1 carbine stock? I would think the lower and mag well would all have to be re fabricated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 10:10:38 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2012 10:11:36 PM by Mad-Machinist]
Absoloutely.......it really shouldn't be all that difficult......I'd probably order a replacement recoil spring from Ruger....just easier than sourcing a spring....LOL......but the reciever and bolt would be pretty straight forward to make.....I looked at the exploded parts diagram and the reciever isn't that different from a 10/22....the bolt is SIGNIFICANTLY different as well as the recoil mechinism....but as it is very similiar in design and dimension it would easily fit in a carbine stock....or at least the build I have in mind......probably be significant acraglas work with the carbine stock and an actual PC4 action.
you've even got me thinking about a 40 PPSH41 now... .......got a kit under my desk at the office.....just need to get a drum........ |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1884 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2012 10:38:24 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2012 10:40:11 PM by wtwining]
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Absoloutely.......it really shouldn't be all that difficult......I'd probably order a replacement recoil spring from Ruger....just easier than sourcing a spring....LOL......but the reciever and bolt would be pretty straight forward to make.....I looked at the exploded parts diagram and the reciever isn't that different from a 10/22....the bolt is SIGNIFICANTLY different as well as the recoil mechinism....but as it is very similiar in design and dimension it would easily fit in a carbine stock....or at least the build I have in mind......probably be significant acraglas work with the carbine stock and an actual PC4 action. you've even got me thinking about a 40 PPSH41 now... .......got a kit under my desk at the office.....just need to get a drum........Is this something you can do? If so I would be interested in what and how you can do it, also what you would charge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2012 11:41:51 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2012 11:45:53 PM by Mad-Machinist]
I can do it....but as I'm not yet an 07 it would be ........interesting....let me talk to some of my 07 buddies and see if they would be willing to hire me for a couple of weeks...
.......do you have any carbine parts? I'm watching a fcg on ebay now......and posted a wtb for a stock on another forum I usually hang on
Cost would be dependent on a lot of things.......it could get pricey pretty quick as I have been looking at M1 carbine parts tonight and DAMN....didn't realize they had gone up so much......didn't realize stocks were selling for $165.00.......if you have any skills as far as being a machinist.....lets get you signed up at weaponsguild and I'll do everything I can to hep you build it yourself............ I'm gonna try scrounging most of the bits and pieces needed and try and build one for myself between payin jobs.... ....let me get one shooting......and I'll see if'n I can get one of my 07 buds to duplicate it so it will be a legal sale.
and the chamber pressure runs about 21,000 psi on a .45.......around 35,000 on the .40 S&W All of the above is musings if I were to build one form the ground up........If I can find a PC4 local to look at......and if it is in one of my friends shop.....LOL.....I can get an idea what it will take to put it in a carbine stock. |
|
|
|
forever4
Firearms aficionado
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2008 KY, USA
Posts: 3205 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/23/2012 11:44:07 PM
If you really want to put one of these rifles in an M-1 stock the Marlin design might well be the easier one to do. If you look at the Ruger it has some big parts tucked inside that stock. Ruger made the bolt assembly rather large and parts of it extend forward into the stock below the barrel. You can see this if you go to their site and look up the owners manual in their support section.
Ruger PC9/40 The Marlin Camp Carbines are much simpler as they use a heavy blow-back bolt that fits up in the receiver. The Marlin stock was sort of styled after the M-1 carbine as was the Ruger 10/22. There was a company that made an upper hand guard for the 10/22 that made the rifle look a lot like the M-1 Carbine. Of course there is a total stock package too now that converts the 1-/22 to be a match for that M-1. I wonder if you couldn't just add an upper hand guard to the Camp. Then cut out the hole in the stock for the oiler and have a pretty little rifle. Of course some think the Camp 9 and 45 look just fine as they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:36:58 AM
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 10:46:26 AM by Mad-Machinist]
Originally Posted By forever4:
If you really want to put one of these rifles in an M-1 stock the Marlin design might well be the easier one to do. If you look at the Ruger it has some big parts tucked inside that stock. Ruger made the bolt assembly rather large and parts of it extend forward into the stock below the barrel. You can see this if you go to their site and look up the owners manual in their support section. Ruger PC9/40 The Marlin Camp Carbines are much simpler as they use a heavy blow-back bolt that fits up in the receiver. The Marlin stock was sort of styled after the M-1 carbine as was the Ruger 10/22. There was a company that made an upper hand guard for the 10/22 that made the rifle look a lot like the M-1 Carbine. Of course there is a total stock package too now that converts the 1-/22 to be a match for that M-1. I wonder if you couldn't just add an upper hand guard to the Camp. Then cut out the hole in the stock for the oiler and have a pretty little rifle. Of course some think the Camp 9 and 45 look just fine as they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marlin design would definitely be easier......and for the casual shooter would be fine.......but the bolt thrust generated by the .40 would eventually cause issues with that design.....they had problems with the recoil buffer on the .45 camp carbines from my understanding.....and it is my guess the Ruger has a heavier bolt than the marlin.....they just put the majority of the reciprocating mass in the front of the bolt carier around the recoil spring. I am currently playing with a roller locked bolt that is actuated by a long stroke piston for a 5.56 design that might work REALLLLLLLLLLLLL well in this application if I adapt it to a short stroke. We will see as time allows.. The ruger design is a much more durable bolt and recoil setup just from looking at the drawings.....I'm gonna play with building one just as a exercise in engineering......but My personal PCC's are all AR, all gas op and all run flawlessly. I have them in .45, 10mm, 40S&W, and 7.62 X 25 Tokarev........and I do have an M1 Carbine....
PS for the OP....can you give me a measured max width of the mag body on the .40 92 mag? |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1887 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/27/2012 6:40:08 PM
ok, I'm back on line, my computer had crashed and I'm still working with it.
I had just picked up a Marlin Camp rifle in 9mm from a gentleman here on ar15.com, nice guy, I can't wait to get it. Now I need this, a M1 stock: https://www.dupagetrading.com/rifle-stocks/new-made-m1-carbine-stocks.html I also plan I using the Beretta magazines with the camp rifle, I have a ton of them and it would be nice to have a carbine with my 92fs. I just don't know how to deal with the hand guards yet, or if I should even try to move the rear sight, what do ya think? I would still need one in .40, i think the Ruger would be the only way to go with that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:04:09 PM
I'm tryin to trade someone out of a camp 9 with the intention of looking at it from a conversion standpoint to .40
|
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1888 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:19:26 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Originally Posted By forever4:
If you really want to put one of these rifles in an M-1 stock the Marlin design might well be the easier one to do. If you look at the Ruger it has some big parts tucked inside that stock. Ruger made the bolt assembly rather large and parts of it extend forward into the stock below the barrel. You can see this if you go to their site and look up the owners manual in their support section. Ruger PC9/40 The Marlin Camp Carbines are much simpler as they use a heavy blow-back bolt that fits up in the receiver. The Marlin stock was sort of styled after the M-1 carbine as was the Ruger 10/22. There was a company that made an upper hand guard for the 10/22 that made the rifle look a lot like the M-1 Carbine. Of course there is a total stock package too now that converts the 1-/22 to be a match for that M-1. I wonder if you couldn't just add an upper hand guard to the Camp. Then cut out the hole in the stock for the oiler and have a pretty little rifle. Of course some think the Camp 9 and 45 look just fine as they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marlin design would definitely be easier......and for the casual shooter would be fine.......but the bolt thrust generated by the .40 would eventually cause issues with that design.....they had problems with the recoil buffer on the .45 camp carbines from my understanding.....and it is my guess the Ruger has a heavier bolt than the marlin.....they just put the majority of the reciprocating mass in the front of the bolt carier around the recoil spring. I am currently playing with a roller locked bolt that is actuated by a long stroke piston for a 5.56 design that might work REALLLLLLLLLLLLL well in this application if I adapt it to a short stroke. We will see as time allows.. The ruger design is a much more durable bolt and recoil setup just from looking at the drawings.....I'm gonna play with building one just as a exercise in engineering......but My personal PCC's are all AR, all gas op and all run flawlessly. I have them in .45, 10mm, 40S&W, and 7.62 X 25 Tokarev........and I do have an M1 Carbine....
PS for the OP....can you give me a measured max width of the mag body on the .40 92 mag? Sorry i couldn't get back to ya sooner, from what I understand the two magazines ( .40 and 9mm) are the same and my 92 mag width is 13/16 or I think that's 20.6mm |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1889 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:22:00 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Originally Posted By forever4:
If you really want to put one of these rifles in an M-1 stock the Marlin design might well be the easier one to do. If you look at the Ruger it has some big parts tucked inside that stock. Ruger made the bolt assembly rather large and parts of it extend forward into the stock below the barrel. You can see this if you go to their site and look up the owners manual in their support section. Ruger PC9/40 The Marlin Camp Carbines are much simpler as they use a heavy blow-back bolt that fits up in the receiver. The Marlin stock was sort of styled after the M-1 carbine as was the Ruger 10/22. There was a company that made an upper hand guard for the 10/22 that made the rifle look a lot like the M-1 Carbine. Of course there is a total stock package too now that converts the 1-/22 to be a match for that M-1. I wonder if you couldn't just add an upper hand guard to the Camp. Then cut out the hole in the stock for the oiler and have a pretty little rifle. Of course some think the Camp 9 and 45 look just fine as they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marlin design would definitely be easier......and for the casual shooter would be fine.......but the bolt thrust generated by the .40 would eventually cause issues with that design.....they had problems with the recoil buffer on the .45 camp carbines from my understanding.....and it is my guess the Ruger has a heavier bolt than the marlin.....they just put the majority of the reciprocating mass in the front of the bolt carier around the recoil spring. I am currently playing with a roller locked bolt that is actuated by a long stroke piston for a 5.56 design that might work REALLLLLLLLLLLLL well in this application if I adapt it to a short stroke. We will see as time allows.. The ruger design is a much more durable bolt and recoil setup just from looking at the drawings.....I'm gonna play with building one just as a exercise in engineering......but My personal PCC's are all AR, all gas op and all run flawlessly. I have them in .45, 10mm, 40S&W, and 7.62 X 25 Tokarev........and I do have an M1 Carbine....
PS for the OP....can you give me a measured max width of the mag body on the .40 92 mag? Please keep us posted on this!
Also, this is very interesting |
|
|
|
wtwining
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 1890 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/27/2012 10:29:19 PM
Originally Posted By Mad-Machinist:
Originally Posted By forever4:
If you really want to put one of these rifles in an M-1 stock the Marlin design might well be the easier one to do. If you look at the Ruger it has some big parts tucked inside that stock. Ruger made the bolt assembly rather large and parts of it extend forward into the stock below the barrel. You can see this if you go to their site and look up the owners manual in their support section. Ruger PC9/40 The Marlin Camp Carbines are much simpler as they use a heavy blow-back bolt that fits up in the receiver. The Marlin stock was sort of styled after the M-1 carbine as was the Ruger 10/22. There was a company that made an upper hand guard for the 10/22 that made the rifle look a lot like the M-1 Carbine. Of course there is a total stock package too now that converts the 1-/22 to be a match for that M-1. I wonder if you couldn't just add an upper hand guard to the Camp. Then cut out the hole in the stock for the oiler and have a pretty little rifle. Of course some think the Camp 9 and 45 look just fine as they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marlin design would definitely be easier......and for the casual shooter would be fine.......but the bolt thrust generated by the .40 would eventually cause issues with that design.....they had problems with the recoil buffer on the .45 camp carbines from my understanding.....and it is my guess the Ruger has a heavier bolt than the marlin.....they just put the majority of the reciprocating mass in the front of the bolt carier around the recoil spring. I am currently playing with a roller locked bolt that is actuated by a long stroke piston for a 5.56 design that might work REALLLLLLLLLLLLL well in this application if I adapt it to a short stroke. We will see as time allows.. The ruger design is a much more durable bolt and recoil setup just from looking at the drawings.....I'm gonna play with building one just as a exercise in engineering......but My personal PCC's are all AR, all gas op and all run flawlessly. I have them in .45, 10mm, 40S&W, and 7.62 X 25 Tokarev........and I do have an M1 Carbine....
PS for the OP....can you give me a measured max width of the mag body on the .40 92 mag? The Ruger would also be the best way to go, I was thinking that maybe, somehow, would it just be possible to fabricating a "lower" for the PC40 (other then plastic) and put the two together in the wood carbine stock? |
|
|
ARCHIVED
