Something to consider (not that this nessessarily applies to you guys).
Should we pick a rifle and sighting system for what we intend to do with it 90% of the time ? The stuff that is realistic ?
Or, should we pick a rifle and sighting system primarily designed for the other 10% of the stuff we might have a need or desire to shoot ?
Put another way: It is realistic to expect to defend yourself at ranges inside 50 yards. It is realistic to expect to make shots in the hunting field out to maybe 200 yards. It is realistic to imagine that in military combat you might be able to see and engage an enemy soldier closer than 200 yards. Afterall, he is going to probably be moving, he is probably going to be using cover and concealment, he is going to possibly shooting back at you, he is probably not going to be alone, you are not going to be shooting from a bench, you are going to be tired, not well fed etc. With all that in mind, how many 400 yard shots do you think you are going to make ? For plinking, target shooting, formal gun schools, and any type of "tactical" competition: I am mainly going to be shooting at 200 yards or less.
So, IMO I buy a rifle and sighting system PRIMARILY for the more likely 0-200 yard range but which is ALSO capable of making a 400 yard shot if the opportunity/nessessity presents itself.
Obviously, if I was setting out the intention of primarily taking shots at 200 yards plus, I wouldn't be shooting a FAL to begin with. And, I would be using a highly magnified optic that wouldn't be appropriate for those close/quick shots.
Any set-up you come up with is a compromise in some way. So, I compromise in the direction of what I think I am going to be doing the most of.
The Aimpoint is a very significant improvement over the stock iron sights IMO. It is the most appropriate sight for a military type assult/battle rifle, again, IMO.
Just my idea. YMMV