If you stop to think about it, the M1 Garand was an excellent gun, but it was impractical in the field because repairs were complex and time consuming, the bolt action K98 was a simple field repair gun. Just for purpose of illustration, let's assume that the bolt on a Garand and a K98 break both at the same time. The Garand would require a full strip down of the action and removal of the bolt from the bolt carrier, then a replacement would have to be found and the gun would have to be rebuilt, an operation that could take up to 30 minutes or more during which the soldier would be vulnerable to any enemy attacks. The K98 would simply need the bolt pulled off, and a new one slid in, a 5 minute operation at the longest. So for basic field repair capability, I'd say the K98 would win, although it would be much simpler to just grab a different rifle, but it's still worth being able to repair the gun just in case no others can be found. For shot power, the guns are about even actually (the M1 gets better muzzle velocity, but the K98 actually makes a bigger hole) although much also depends on the individual gun and the state of wear/ presence of manufacturers defects. For fire rate, the M1 wins without question. Accuracy, I have to give the prize to the K98, because its range is a little more than double that of the M1, and almost quadruple with a scope mounted. For versatility, I have to say the M1 has it, because it can technically be engineered with selective fire (yes it's possible, even though no kits exist to do it... so it would take a rather talented gunsmith and some heavy modification). Having said all that, it's really down to the individual to decide which one suits them better. For me, I like the K98 a bit better because semi-auto rifles always tempt me to shoot as fast as I can...

__________________
"In war there is no good and evil: only survival and death" - unknown

"Grandpa, the German way is to lose two world wars and blame it on someone else." - Me