The first of these two rifles is the AR-15. This is the civilian model of the US military's main rifle. It is popular. ONE of the reasons it is so popular is that it's actually a pretty good "utility rifle". It's easy (and relatively fun) to shoot and is extremely simple to maintain. This is not surprising, the original was designed to be "soldier-proof" - although nothing ever truly is, the infantry are FAR too good at finding creative or just plain stupid ways to break kit, including their rifles. It is also fairly inexpensive. The volumes of production of the military models bring their economies of scale to production of the civilian equivalent too.
In its "stock" configuration, it fires a relatively light round with, as rifles go, only moderate muzzle energy. This was acceptable to the military because the lighter each individual round the more soldiers could pack along in their "basic load." They were content with the lower muzzle energy because in military terms an "effective hit" is one that renders the target combat-ineffective. It's actually more effective in military terms to inflict an incapacitating wound than to immediately kill your target. Large numbers of wounded needing recovery, field treatment and medevac are a greater drain on a military formation than an equivalent number of KIA would be. This rifle is also highly capable of a respectable volume of fire, its action cycling rapidly and fairly smoothly even under extreme conditions.
In the civilian world, all those things that made it highly desirable to the military actually limit it. I described it, accurately, as a "decent utility rifle" but that's all it will ever be. It's a jack of all trades and the master of none. It's massively overpowered for small vermin unless in a variant that fires an even lighter round, pretty decent for large vermin and small game but it won't take bigger game cleanly at anything but short range (unless in a modified version with a heavier cartridge) and while it is certainly capable of killing the moose that wants to trample you into paste or the bear that has decided you have no further use for your face, the "stock" AR-15 isn't capable of stopping either. Not in time to do you much good anyway. If you want to practice your marksmanship and want an easy-shooting, inexpensive to buy and own rifle, it's hard to argue against the AR-15. For any other legitimate purpose, it's hard to argue for it. For each of those other purposes there are other rifles on the market that are infinitely superior in almost every aspect except maybe the price. So how come it's so darn popular?
Aside from its relatively low price and ease of customisation, it's certainly a factor that an American who is ex-military and has a use for a rifle already knows this beast, knows its quirks and foibles and will instantly feel comfortable using it. Then there's the other crowd.
"Ug want gun army got. Give Ug that gun."
We all know the type. We've all seen 'em. And we all know they are a problem. They are the guys swaggering while they "open carry" displaying their insecurities like the teen racer bolting spoilers onto his underpowered rice-burner. What makes them a big problem is that they are actually a pretty big market. Nobody ever went broke betting on a ready supply of fools.
Which brings me to the second rifle I want to talk about.
The second rifle is the SIG NGSW XM5, aka the Spear. The "NGSW" stands for "Next Generation Squad Weapon." It's just won the contest to be adopted by the US military. "Ug wants gun army got" is soon going to be wanting it. At the moment, this is decidedly NOT an inexpensive rifle, but nor was the ArmaLite when Colt started producing the AR-15. Volume production to supply the US military is going to make this rifle get a lot cheaper real fast.
I've shot an AR-15, so I can speak to the ease with which even a marginally-competent rifleman can use it. I've not had that opportunity with a SIG Spear, but it wouldn't have made the cut with the US military if it couldn't be issued to a spotty young recruit and have him or her turn into a fairly competent rifleman with an acceptable level of "encouragement" from a motivated NCO. It may not be as easy as an AR-15 but we can be sure it isn't far off.
But an AR-15 it most definitely is not. The AR-15 is often mistakenly described as a "high-powered" rifle. The basic AR-15 is chambered in .223 Remington, the civilian equivalent of the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge and is actually only a moderate-power round. The stock Spear is chambered in 6.8x51mm. This is a truly high-powered round, capable of defeating body armor. The rounds are heavier and larger, soldiers will carry fewer of them in a basic load and there will be fewer in a single magazine. This would only be acceptable to the military if it was considered that, armed with this rifle, an individual soldier would not need so many rounds hanging off their webbing or stashed in their pack.
Think about that for a minute. "The soldiers wont be able to carry so many rounds" - "That's ok, they won't need more than they got"
Just think back over the last decade at the body-count from the various "Ugs" playing with their AR-15s. Now look at the NEXT decade and consider those same guys with a truly high-powered rapid-firing rifle capable of defeating body armor at ranges where an AR-style would be barely effective. Think of all the apartment walls that were penetrated by irresponsibly-fired rounds and instead wonder how many apartments that same round would travel through if it was one that carried many times the energy.
This is a wake-up call, folks. If you wait on doing something, anything, to keep Ug from getting his paws on firearms until the Spear - or variants thereof - are as readily available as the AR-15 is today then you'll be looking at the bloodbath of the past decade as "the good old days."