You may be interested in this similar question about the use of Marxian theory in history that I answered previously. I don't talk about historical materialism specifically, but Marxian theory more generally.

In terms of historical materialism specifically, I'd say archaeologists have probably been some of the most enthusiastic adopters. This makes sense to a degree since the study of archaeology is the study of material culture, and so the thesis of historical materialism is already in the wheelhouse of archaelogy. One of the easiest things for archaeologists to determine from archaeological data is information about the relations of production in a society, and so historical materialism is attractive because it then proposes a way to use this easily generate data - on production - to talk about issues that are harder to discuss using archaeological data. Social organization for instance.

V. Gordon Childe (an avowed Marxist in his political life, outside his research), has probably one of the more famous uses in his "Neolithic Revolution" model. In this model, the development of craft specialists (aided by a transition to agricultural society) is one of the primary driving factors in the development of early states. Since he elaborated on this model in the 1930s and 40s archaeological research has indicated the origins of the state are much more complex than his fairly simple economic model, but that model still stands as an important component of the bigger picture even if it doesn't tell the whole story.