I believe the M1 Garand is a bad rifle. It's designed in a way that is not reload able, it is heavy, optics cannot be mounted straight on it, and it is a danger to the hands of those who use it. As a relic, it may have collectors value, like a Lebel or a Carcano, but there is a good reason why it was thrown in the trash after 1945, while designs like the Mauser and even the lowly Mosin Nagant saw action for half a century after world war 2. The Garand is an overrated rifle, born of comic book hubris and of little actual battlefield merit. That's how I see it.
You're entitled to your opinion, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment...
But I disagree. I think the OP will end up in the deep minority on this one. The OP may have heard of a General named George Patton - who is legendary. His opinion of the M1 Garand was that it was, "The greatest battle implement ever devised."
Going back to the era, it was rugged, reliable and offered more and faster semi-auto shots on target than our opponents. The Garand is no more or less difficult to mount optics, on, and most GIs in the fight had no reason for optics. Fighting was done largely within pretty close proximity in urban and heavily wooded areas or small farmlands. The weight was appropriate for the cartridge While the Mauser is a marvel, it held only 5 rounds and was slower bolt action. The Arisaka wasn't much of a rifle by comparison and was among the worse bolt guns of the era. Big, awkward, and clumsy.
The M1 Garand gave GIs the ability to put 8 quick .3006 shots on target without stoping to operate a bolt or reload, so much faster and retaining sight picture. Multiply that by hundreds of Soldiers, and that's a massive advantage. Assuming for the sake of argument that it's twice as fast, and you have 100 Soldiers (and reloads take the same amount of time... let's just see how it compares. Assume these are aimed shots and sustained rates of fire and unlimited ammo for the sake of argument.
8 round clip x 2 (representing twice as fast versus bolt guns) shots x 100 Soldiers = 1600 rounds.
5 shots x 100 Soldiers = 500 rounds.
That is a huge difference in the aggregate multiplied by long, sustained battles and hundreds of thousands of men.
On a personal note, I own 4 and find it to be a beautiful and well-functioning work horse. There are advantages to the fixed internal magazine. It's not perfect, nor as good as a modern semi-auto rifle. But compared to the cars from the 1940s neither are they as good as cars today...