Chida, recoil on the 93 is a little more stiff than you'd find on the AR, and the trigger pull is heavier. But this rifle is accurate as sin. As for the sighting system it has a rotating diopter system as well as an open V-notch (which I never use). I normally just go with the 200 meter diopter and she just feels naturally like a 'point and shoot' rifle.
All together its also much heavier than a AR, and although I've never had any problems with AR's reliablity, I personally feel more confident shooting the 93.
I had a brass catcher attached to this rifle on one occasion while shooting, and had a fired casing bounce back into the chamber during cycling. Unknown at the time, I fired the successive shot. Now I would think that this would stop most rifles from working however, the 93 basically sheared the casing in half, dumped the base of the case in the catcher, chambered the second round with the other half of the destroyed casing and successfully fired the round. Upon ejection, the new empty + the half casing were cleanly ejected (flat as a pankcake!) - The rifle didnt miss a beat- with no damage to the bolt or receiver. A true testament to the rifles durability and reliability.
Do I think the rifle is deserving of the $2000+ price that I see on the net? Well, not so sure of that, especially since I bought it for $699 back in 1989. The price of magazines are also a prohibitive cost - $60 to $75, although back in the good ole days they went for $25.
As for the 91 verses something like a FAL - same stipulations apply - 91's are heavier in weight and trigger pull - as well as recoil being a bit more harsh. I opted to get a Imbel FAL and I dont think I would trade it for a 91.