Quoted: Shot at longer distances, there is not a rifle listed that would leave the Garand in the dust. Save for the smaller ammo capacity [8 rounds VS 20] there is little that makes the others stand out a huge amount and reloading is fast and quick. Since AP is legal in 30/06, there is a plus right there to even it a bit also. The sights are better on the Garand then several you listed so while I would like more ammo capacity, there is little difference save for that which could be a deal breaker for many. I would feel perfectly fine using it in a SHTF situation as the bigger part of the equasion is the person BEHIND the rifle.

The 8-rd clip is at once a plus and a minus.
On the plus side, it is lightweight, more compact than any magazine of identical capacity could ever be, and can be left loaded and ready to go indefinitely.
On the minus side, it is easily damaged, even more easily lost, and tactical gear for carrying lots of them is not readily available.  Bandoliers are fine, but are not exactly the quickest thing from which to retrieve a clip.
You can easily retrieve your clips at the range, or even hunting.  Doing so during a more serious type of encounter is almost out of the question.
All this said, it is virtually a requirement for the Garand owner to have all their ammo clipped up and also to have loads of spare clips to replace those lost and/or damaged.

Moving on from that issue, the most commonly heard complaints about the Garand were that it was a bit long, a bit heavy, and that the en-bloc clip system had issues.  Scoping the Garand posed some serious challenges.

Let's fast-forward from 1957.

Our modernized Garand sports a 18" chrome-lined barrel, your choice of caliber.  The stock is a modern composite unit, with plenty of room in the hollow buttstock for a cleaning kit and some essential spare parts.
The front sight has a Tritium insert, and the rear aperture has been widened to a modern 'Ghost ring" peep, much faster than the former version, and better in low-light conditions.  The primary sighting system is a Scout mount installed in place of the rear handguard and mounts a Burris pistol scope with reticular hold-overs out to 500yds (and beyond, if you wish).  Mounted on Leupold QRW rings, it is easily and quickly removed/installed with no loss in zero.
The shortened barrel can sport either an SEI Vortex flash suppressor or a muzzle brake from the same folks.  Because of their attachment method, either will accept the M5A1 bayonet which can double as a decent field knife.  Modern M-10 all-composite scabbard for same, as well as the excellent GI synthetic M-14 sling, which not only allows easy carrying, but doubles as a shooting aid for long ranges.
The lost/damaged clip problem can be solved if the owner installs a "Holbrook Device".  This unit requires manual ejection of the empty clip (no more "PING!") and admittedly slows down the reloading process a small amount, BUT the unejected, empty clip (still in rifle) can also be easily topped-off.  Oh, BTW, no more M1 Thumb.
Last, but not least, we'll treat the trigger group to a nice trigger job.

Google "FMCO" for modern ALICE and/or MOLLE compatible clip carrying pouches and vests.

Is all this modification fair?

Figure that your FAL or M1A will cost $1200 or more VS. $600 for a decent M1 on which to install the mods.  Optics and mount costs will be roughly equal for any of the rifles referenced, thus making even the modified M1 less expensive than either of the others.  

Such a lightweight, handy M1 with state of the art components and sighting systems would be very hard to beat, either feature wise, or by comparing the cost.

In point of fact, just such an M1 beat out all comers in a speed-shoot comparison detailed in " Boston's Gun Bible".

The original M1 is not obsolete as an MBR, although it has its drawbacks.  Once those drawbacks are remedied, the M1 can be a very potent and thoroughly modern MBR.

the only thing it lacks is on hand capacity, but if you are a rifleman, trained to shoot effectively at individual targets, that's not much of an issue.

My M16A1 clone is my urban go-to rifle though.  But my Garand is still in the top 3

actually the current m1a's from springfield are a miserable copy of a select fire MBR. they are not nor ever have been a fielded rifle by any modern military. the US military doesn't have any m1a's as far as i know. IIRC they are ALL m14's.

Quoted: Quoted: Larry, The M1A is a clone of trhe M14 correct? I think most would consider very much a main battle rifle. By the way nice looking collection you have there! I am just saying that the vast majority of Garands in the hands of us nuts are ACTUAL battle rifles whereas the M1A is just a clone. The original post listed real MBRs like the FAL but listed the M1A instead of the M14.  The M14 is a battle rifle, an M1A is not.

Strictly speaking, perhaps that is so, although saying so presumes that the M1A has never been used in battle.  That is something I'd not want to say.

Now that I think on it, enough important parts have been swapped out of most imported MBRs (including, but not limited to the FAL) to make them more like the M1A as opposed to an M-14.

For that matter, a number of improvements have been made to the M1A/M-14.  Perhaps enough to render the modern version somewhat superior to the original GI version.

I doubt the recipient of a 7.62mm round would be able to tell if it was fired from a real M-14, or from an M1A.  If I'm wrong, perhaps aomeone who has undergone such an experience will speak up.