I haven't, but I understand the motivation.
I think we've all head
this one:
The story goes like this: in the 1960s, NASA astronauts discovered that their pens did not work in zero gravity. So like good engineers, they went to work and designed a wonder pen. It worked upside down. It worked in vacuum. It worked in zero gravity. It even worked underwater! And it only cost a million dollars!
The crafty Russians used a pencil.
If you watch the military channel they'll point out similar situations with tanks -- the Germans and we make some outstanding but overly-complex designs, versus the "fix it with two rocks" complexity of Soviet era stuff. It seems like the difference is one of looking to make the "best" or "best given a certain price point" equipment, versus making the cheapest possible design that works "good enough."
And we see the same thing in the rifle world. AR's are among the most accurate, ergonomic, and customizable rifle designs ever, but they've got a couple of down sides: they're complex, and therefore expensive; and they need to be kept clean because of the direct impingement system.
The AKs, on the other hand, are a bit lacking in the accuracy and ergonomics departments, but can be made for $22 by Afghani tribesmen over open fires, and they can be abused and never cleaned and still run pretty good.
I think there's something special to a bulletproof design like that. I can
totally understand why someone would find that appealing, especially if circumstances (questionable build, bad mags, bad maintenance) meant they weren't seeing the reliability out of their AR that they wanted.
Personally, I find the AR good enough, and the hours upon hours I spent working with them in the Army means I'm quite comfortable with the platform. I don't see myself switching soon.
