I have an M96 and have several FALs. I don't own a DSA-built FAL, but my FALs are of comparable quality to the DSA FALs I've handled.
If the main criteria is aimed rapid fire, the .223 M96 rifle will win, merely because it has less recoil and will be easier to get back on-target quicker.
Otherwise, I think the question comes down to which caliber you want to shoot.
The M96 and FAL have similar operating principles. The FAL is heavier and thus a bit "sturdier" but neither feel like "toy" rifles (like my AR-15 did - no flames). For the particular rifles I have, the M96 is slightly more accurate: around 1.2 MOA vs 1.6 MOA.
Neither have exceptional triggers, both having noticable creep.
Both can mount optics. For the FAL, you need to buy a $60-$90 mount from DSA that replaces the dust cover. It is made of machined aluminum and weighs almost 1lb. A scoped FAL is pretty heavy. When my full-length FAL was scoped, it topped the scales over 11lbs.
For the M96, you need to buy a $100-$200 mount from wither DDD&D (??) or Robinson Arms. I don't know how much it weighs, but probably round the same as the FAL mount, judging by overall volume of material.
Both rifles are "clean-running" in that the action does not get very dirty (as compared to an AR-15 - no flames). I rarely clean mine anymore. It is easier to clean the FAL reciver, however, since the dust cover comes off. The M96 receiver is not open like the FAL rec, so it is harder to clean.
One neat feature of the M96 is that the barrel drops right out in about 2 seconds, so you can get another carbine or full-length barrel, or even the "recon" kit, which has a shorter gas system.
If you have other particular questions, I can try to answer them.
-z
