>>64212540
>the FN FAL is still a reliable and powerful rifle. Why should an army replace it?
Weight, no one's arguing that tree-ol-hate is a bad round but if you can carry twice as many 5.56 mags then outside of niche roles more is generally better. Also the rifle itself is heavier too especially in the front.

Also this >>64212569
Ukraine is taking whatever they can get including M551 Sheridan's which are great ATV's but are basically aluminum coffins by today's standards. Also the photo in your OP pic is likely the territorial defense force rather than one of the more elite units who get first dibs on whatever the fuck the rest of Eastern Europe dumps there.

>>64212981
If you can afford new dust covers but more importantly optics that are grunt proof you might as well just upgrade to 1964 era tech and slowly shift your FAL's to less intense but still important roles that don't need the latest and greatest.