Well Terry, I have experience with a LOT of FAL's in both civilian and military guise. I have carried them in "for real", so you're making assumptions on what I do (okay, did) with my FAL, and you're making the same assumption for the original poster.
Yes, Israel did have some reliability issues with the FAL but that's not the reason they dropped the FAL (those issues were later addressed by the Brits and it went away...those are developmental issues, every weapon has them.) Israel made their choice on wether to keep the FAL the same way they chose to dump the Galil; economics, pure and simple. If it was based on performance, then they would have never dumped the Galil which was probably the second best military rifle ever issued to a soldier (the first beign the Valmet M62/76, which the Galil was based upon).
As for whether the AR10 is a proven system or not, well that is left to opinion. My opinion is formed because when it WAS a military rifle, it was very quickly put out of service for performance related issues, most of which were reliability issues. Not one nation chose to stick with the AR10 to further develop it. So the AR10 did not see the kind of development that a long serving rifle gets in military service. Widespread military service will expose every flaw in a weapon, and if a nation is committed to the weapon design, then the weapon becomes all but perfected. The AR10 never got this sort of development. Making the assumption that all lessons learned in the M16 applies to the AR10 is a big assumption.
Now for all I know, the original poster may take his rifle south of the border on protection details like I did with mine (and other weapons). Or perhaps the orignal poster is in law enforcement and may seee a purpose there; again, I make no assumptions. This is why I made the strong distinction between a fighting rifle or a range toy...give him all the information and let him decide.
