Why is the m1 carbine more expensive than the garand ?

[DaveHH]

I study the history of the M1 Carbine and the 6M produced and it looked like this: The Ordnance had a winner on its hands. It wanted carbines, a lot of them, so they worked with the various companies and pushed them kicking and screaming into full production. Trading barrels and parts, working with amateur businessmen, Major companies and cheaters they got them all going full bore, making thousands of carbines each day. These companies were busting their butts, innovating redesigning, trading parts borrowing to meet their production goals. And just like that Ordnance stopped. Spring of 1944 everyone except Inland and Winchester was sent home with an empty lunchbox. I've heard somewhere that NPM received a huge issue of IBM barrels in the spring of '44. Inland was making so many guns that they asked Ordnance to approve previously rejected barrels that they had on hand. Like "they will work, so why not?"
I get a feeling that the overall production was exceeding expectations and beyond M2 carbines they had more than enough guns to meet demand and future needs. The war was still very much in doubt, so it probably was not that they were seeing the end in sight. The fact that they never made another Carbine and used them in three wars hints that they had plenty.
Why are Carbines so expensive? They are handy useful weapons that are light and fun to shoot. Women and children like them. They don't weigh 9 lbs and can bite off your thumb like a Garand. The M1 rifle is awkward and hard to load until you get used to it. Almost no recoil and cheap ammunition sells a lot of Carbines. On the west coast, there just aren't many for sale at any price.