What is better a Kar98k or an M1 Garand?

Answer 1

That question was settled in WW II. People with the K98 lost.

The Garand and Mauser have nearly the same energy and accuracy, but the Garand is an 8 shot semi-automatic, and the Mauser is a 5 shot bolt action.

The M1 was clearly the dominant rifle of WWII, not because of it's service length (it was a new comer to the table) but due to its general issue to all U.S. troops, its simplicity, its great accuracy, its extreme battle proven reliability, and because of the fantastic effectiveness it obtained when put up against the now-outdated bolt action rifle systems. The Garand was designed to out shoot, and outpeform every existing service rifle in every other country, it had simpler and more effective peep sights, automatic clip ejecting, making reloading that much faster, ejecting clips part way through was faster and easier than adding single rounds that bolt actions were required to do, its gas operation also reduced the recoil making it faster to stay on target than bolt actions, this, combined with the better sight picture of the peep sights, semi-automatic capability, and the automatic clip ejecting and clearng of the magazine made the M1 Garand the dominant force multiplyer of service rifles in WWII and Korea. The Garand really had no significant oppositon in WWII in terms of better service rifles the only "close" competition, was the Russian, SVT-40 and German Gewehr 43, though those were expensive to make, very complicated systems, and had reliability issues in prolongued combat envronments where cleaning them was impossible, due to either somewhat poorly made parts, or poor design flaws. Plus they were never generally issued due to these reasons. The Garand had none of these problems.