military reasons
 

On a separate post on the .45 ACP there was disagreement on the issuance of the m-1 carbine.

I stated that there was too many officers unable to stop a rushing jap with a sword using his .45 ACP (yes shooting skill was probably the reason) so the marines issued officers the M-1 carbine as a substitute for the .45 ACP.

Granted the m-1 carbine round was also an anoemic round but on fully automatic (I' m told they had a auto/semiauto switch) they could locate a bunch of rounds across the enemy fast.

This much is clear: The M-1 Carbine was designed as a very close range and lightweight gun.

What' s the real reason for the introduction of the M-1 carbine?

RE: military reasons
 

The reason the M-1 carbine was made is for the pupose of defense,wich you made clear in your post.
Alot more pepole could aim a rifle better than a pistol,and shoot from the hip or on the fly.

The .30 carbine was made only for self-defense and to make the intruder imobile.

RE: military reasons
 

The M1 carbine did not have select fire capability. The M2 was an automatic version of the M1 carbine. The carbine was originally put into service as a weapon for rear echelon troops. It was not to replace the 45 ACP sidearm, but rather to enhance firepower and combat capability while providing a small, lightweight weapon. It was never meant as a main battle weapon, but more of a defensive weapon.

RE: military reasons
 

I disagree about being a very close range weapon. With a 1911, one could be expected to hit a mansized target maybe to 50 yards on a good day, with the m1 carbine, 200 yards isn' t a difficult shot. The .30 carbine cartridge isn' t very hard hitting at longer ranges, but its at least better than a sharp stick.

Its a much better weapon than the pistol for rear eschelon troops- if for some reason they come into contact with enemies, they have a much longer effective range, and a much higher magazine capacity.

RE: military reasons
 

I was issued a M-2 at one time in service and I got to shoot plenty of rounds with it.We quilified with it up to 300 yds which wasn' t bad with those big bullseyes.If you got one with a good barrel they shot very well at that distance.I don' t remember the fire rate but it was susposed to be faster than a 30 cal machine gun.
Once we were on the firing range,think there was about 30 of us,a rabbit came hopping slowly accross about a 100 yds out every one fliped them on auto and that rabbit made it all the way accross without a scratch,now that was some great shooting.:D

RE: military reasons
 

I did quite a little combat shooting some years back. In the hands of a good pistol shooter the 45 ACP can do some remarkable things However in the hand of a novice or green recruit, the 45 auto is a joke. It is not easy to master the recoil and rather short sight radiuos. The 30 carbine was a much more shootable gun and easier to master in a short time. The ones I shot in the military though were certainly not effectice a 100 yards. It would be like throwing a pail of rocks. I had a couple of them and they are fun to shoot but I once hit a badger six times before he was done. They have about one third or less the effective range of a 30-30.

RE: military reasons
 

from what i hear. the M-2 was the full automatic version of the M-1 carbine and did not come to be untill the end of the war. 43' . also they came out with the M-1 for the artillary and other groups where they needed more range than the 1911 and lighter than the M-1 garand