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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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