The Moses Mag FAL mags have been know to cure a lot of the mag issues for troubled FAL's and L1A1's.

The Fal or L1a1 is a very reliable, tough as a tank battle rifle that you should be held on to in your collection, unless it is a frequent trouble maker!

I have a century imbel build from about 2001. I stacked mags for it. It runs and shoots. I don't think it is one of their monkey builds. That being said, I haven't shot it in probably 14 years.

The ar based rifles are simply better. They do what fals can't do. Cheap, new production mags, optics, inherent accuracy, ability to shoot heavier loads..

Last week week my dpms and PSA shooting 178 amax loads...

AR -type rifles are bulky, for many lack ergonomics of the FAL, and are simply not as robust. Iron-sighted, you probably won't be able to see a difference. Reliability? Edge to the FAL. Heavy loads? Dude, I launch 180gr all the time. No issues. Scoped, edge goes to the AR-type, simply because of the rail on top of the receiver. Reloading? FAL is faster and more positive for most people under stress.

The biggest issue is what is most comfortable and how you plan to use it. Oh, yeah, I actually do own a couple of both. Love 'em both. Carried the FAL for years as a duty rifle in my cruiser.

EDIT: I hope that isn't at 100 yards. My 18" barreled FAL will shoot that well easily.

I do prefer the ergonomics of the FAL to those of the AR.  Charging handle is faster and easier to use, I can pull it back and activate the bolt hold-open with one hand while maintaining my firing grip, I find it easier to push out than in from the side when it come to the magazine release (I can reach the FAL's with my index finger) and I'm less likely to accidentally push the magazine release.  If you fit the FAL with a forward assist it is usable while maintaining one's firing grip.  The AR selector is better compared to the more angled FAL (grip (they changed to this angle to increase comfort while firing rifle grenades) and the standard selector, but the advantage disappears if you use a less-angled grip and/or one of the extended FAL selectors.  The FAL is also slimmer.  I also have a preference for rock-and-lock magazines if the mechanism is well-designed for ease of use, as the FAL is.  I've never understood the argument about ARs having these vastly superior ergonomics.  Maybe compared to an M-14 or G-3, but not compared to a FAL.

These are my exact feelings on the matter of FAL ergonomics.  The only thing I would add is that all controls on a FAL use a different finger or different motion; sometimes both.  Additionally, none of the operations push the rifle around while being performed.  Inserting and locking a magazine pulls the rifle back into the shoulder, as does working the charging handle.  Activating the bolt release incurs no net motion.  Compare this to an AR, where inserting a magazine tries to shove the rifle up (especially if inserting a full mag on a closed bolt), and slapping the bolt release knocks it to the right.  You can always activate the bolt release while gripping the magwell, but this requires locating the release in the middle of the receiver--possible with practice, but not nearly as nice as how inserting a magazine into a FAL leaves your thumb resting on top of the bolt release.

I don't usually use the bolt release on the FAL, I just use it as a hold-open.  I just slap the charging handle back.  I find it to be more efficient for me and it also reduces the chances of the BHO's foot coming loose.

If you put on the Ergo grip or SAW grip, you don't have that sharp angle, and the safety is easier to manipulate. put on one of the DSA extended safeties, and it becomes even better (and I think better than the AR).

Competition triggers, free float handguards...heavy bullets (I admit, I'm not sure if that is recommended in the FAL)....Optics... AR still wins. Ergonomics are close between the two. Another thing I've noticed about my FAL, stock angle and sight alignment (iron sights) just don't seem to match. I think the Irons sit too low. Could be a function of the mismatch between English and Metric parts in the Century build. Fal is a good rifle. It's just old... Still works like a lot of old stuff.

I might suggest the STG-58 style buttstock, completely changes the handling (much better, in my opinion). Again, big difference between a range toy and a work gun. Free floats and comp triggers can be had for the FAL, but I prefer standard. I don't have to worry about breakage if I drop the FAL. Give me an OEG on a FAL carbine, and I can move and shoot faster than with an AR10-type carbine and an Aimpoint. Done it. PRO is nice, but a bit slower than the OEG on CQ engagements. I would say that a Century frankenrifle FAL mixing inch and metric parts will probably have accuracy issues.

I am a FAL/SLR/L1A1/ etc. fan.
I have never had one that I could not get running.
I bought a lot of the Century rifles just to get the parts.
Many were built on matching kits with excellent parts.
They are very rugged and easy to take care of or not.
I have found that "Most" people that own one and shoot it will never sell it.

A lower priced .308 rifle that is being overlooked is the Century C308. Its a CETME/HK91/G3 design made with many new PTR parts with a few CETME parts.  The rifle is reliable and shoots almost as well as my DSA SA58. Its battle accuracy for sure but thats what it was designed for.  These rifles have new barrels and receivers and look new. The only draw back is the heavy force needed to draw back the cocking handle but that is evident in all delayed roll back rifle designs that are not gas operated. IMO, the C308 is the best Century made rifle to date and you can find them for under $600.

I ditched every MBR I had to go with FALs, should have kept and multiplied my AR-10's.

FALs are my first love, as corny as that sounds. Got into building them and that really takes you down the rabbit hole. I'd say that for casual gun guys, the FAL isn't a huge draw. but the guys like me, who really like them, get waaaay into it. They will always be my weapon of choice.

FALs have interchangeable parts. ARs in 308 are proprietary.
FALs can have folding stocks (para FAL)
FALs are far more durable but heavier and not as accurate.

I love my OSW with 30 rds of 308 and 2 ft long. with a 11 inch barrel. Hard to get a 11 inch AR in 308 that short.

Sounds like a GREAT reason.

some kids like me watch too many Soldier of Fortune movies in the late 70s and early 80s...

The guns were great before American mfg. bastardized them.  Back in the day, even the STGs put together by Century on Imbel receivers were pretty good.  But they started making their own receivers and DSA ran out of parts.  Its gotten so bad they are lowering the values of the good ones.

That is why I end up with so many guns, I get them while they are good.  But then all this crap gets released to the market and 99% of people think any Fal is worth 75% of a crap Century.  Can't bear to sell them knowing how hard it will be to find one of equivalent quality again.

I agree with you. I love my fal l1a1 hybrid I just sent it to Arizona to get reworked.

Just put an MTAC on my 18" gun. PLENTY accurate with Mk319 ammo. Used the ARMS mount (very stable, good repeatability) with a Weaver SPR one-piece. Nice and handy, well-balanced and FAST. Reliable. VERY reliable. Makes for a PERFECT semiautomatic scout rifle.

16" FAL Para with Armson OEG (had to WECSOG the topcover a bit) is probably my fastest-handling gun (feels even faster than my 5.56 AR rifles). CQB wet dream. Even the DSA 30rnd mags run reliably with it.

One of my 308 AR rifles has an 18" barrel, free-float guard, fixed stock, Geisssle trigger, and Nightforce 3.5-15x56mm NXS. Balance is front-heavy, feels a bit bulky, and is a good bit more accurate. different purposes. My 16" 308 AR has a dot sight, but is still nose-heavy and feels slower than my FALs.

Love 'em all, will keep 'em all, but the FALs are what I would grab for work.