who makes the more desirable and reliable versions
FN (Belgium), CAL (Canada), Lithgow (Austraia). Make sure all of the rifle's numbered parts match.
Unfortunately it is true that many shooters only experience with FALs are from poor quality makers or "gunsmiths" who build them in their garage or small shops with no real qualifications. I have fired several such guns over the years that were unreliable, recoiled excessively due to over-sized gas ports, and just plain looked terrible with junky parts and poorly cast receivers
Indeed. I don't understand why someone would assemble a bunch of diverse parts and then complain when the result is neither accurate nor reliable. :banghead:
The FAL has crummy sights
Well, you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. But - with all due respect - that opinion counts for little, since you didn't even specify which of the FAL's various sights you were criticizing.
a trigger that is fair at best
Some are good, most are fair, some are poor: same as most other rifles.
Almost every FAL trigger can be tuned to the point where it would rate good or better. I do agree that the best FAL trigger will not be quite as good as the best M-14 trigger.
the balance just seems off to me. To me, it feels way too front heavy and very awkward to shoot offhand.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I find the FAL to be much superior for offhand shooting. I prefer the M-14 for prone shooting, which is not the FAL's strongpoint (many people tend to keep their supporting hand too far back, with some actually gripping the magazine. This reduces control and - of course - accuracy)
Not in my experience.
The gas adjustment is a pointless complication that, if ill-adjusted, can jam the rifle (been there, done that).
No, it's a desirable feature that permits effective launching of rifle grenades and tweaking for use with ammunition of various origins and in different environmental conditions. It also facilitates maximum recoil reduction consistant with reliability.
Before this post, I had never even heard the gas regulator criticized. It is certainly not complicated. Many thousands of private infantrymen have used it without problems. So have generations of cadets. If they can handle it, so can any reasonably intelligent recreational shooter.
FAL magazines are far less sturdy than M14 magazines and are the only ones that I've ever had the base plate pop off, dumping the rounds at my feet.
Again, your views might be more credible if they weren't so general. FAL magazines are not all the same. The imperial magazines are much stronger than the metric verisons (the L1A1s and C1A1s can use both, which is another reason to prefer those rifles).
FWIW, I have never experienced a failure with either imperial or metric FAL magazines.
The FAL can be scoped, but the scope mount is a bit of a kludge.
I agree. But then, a (heavy, bulky, fragile) scope on a battle rifle isn't usually desireable anyway. The C1A1's disc rear sight is perfectly adequate for the purposes for which the FAL was designed. If one wishes to shoot > 500 yds, a bolt action or falling block is a better choice.
