It's really not that bad of a rifle to scope, but it's somewhat of a compromise. All of the scope mounts project over the top of the reciever and invariably get slapped by brass as it ejects from the rifle. The ejection port is also restricted severely. There are two ways to scope the gun so that this isn't a problem. One is to put a scout-type mount on the gun over the barrel. The other is to MAKE a mount that will place the scope beside the ejection port in M-1C/D Garand style. This is the way I would go. As for the AR-10 and FAL guns, these are both simple guns to scope. With the Flattop AR-10, you simply put rings on. The FAL takes many different kinds of mounts but most clamp over the upper receiver.
The whole debate comes down to what you want to do with the gun. It's a compromise in terms of sniping although certainly adequate as a battle rifle with iron sights. For sniping, any bolt-action will do. If you want a gun that will do both, I'd have to lean towards a gun that was easier to scope. I might catch some flack from fans or purists out there but it's something I truly believe. If you'd tell us what you want to do with the rifle or what your feelings are toward the factors I listed, it might just be that you can live with the defficiencies.
As for the generation thing. I think first generation has one bolt, second generation has two (one going through a block installed in place of the stripper clip guide) and generation three is mounted higher so that you can use the iron sights at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong.