I built a FAL out of parts kit, specified number of US parts to meet requirements of idiotic import ban signed by Bush Sr, and an Imbel receiver. My kit was broken all the way down to the roll pins, and I assembled everything except for the barrel onto the receiver.
Since I wanted a rifle and not a grenade, I had a good gunsmith do that last tricky part for me.
Here's why I went FAL.
1) An M-14 costs twice as much as the FAL.
2) 20 round FAL mags cost about $5 each, at least the metric pattern ones.
3) Nintey-something countries had to know something was good to adopt the FAL as their main battle rifle.
4) Parts and mags easier to get hold of than CETMEs.
I love my FAL. I can shoot about two-inch to three-inch groups with it off a rest at 100 yards. But hey, it's a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle. And 3 MOA shooting means you can still hit a gallon-milk-jug sized target at 300 yards
FAL or CETME? I figure the answer to your question is just YES.
Hey, if you get a real deal on a CETME, why not just get both?
hillbilly