Commentary?
There are both good and bad characteristics to the MGS. IMHO the entire Stryker program is flawed. Remember, this is just one person's opinion.
First the bad:
The Stryker in all variants is very prone to rollovers while maneuvering on smooth, level terrain. It is hard for the driver to perform some countermeasure driving tactics as there is a chance of rolling over. There were some roll overs during the initial testing, but they were swept under the carpet then (remember, I was there) and are still being kept quiet.
The autoloader for the MGS has a very limited number of rounds available in the basic load that are under armor. Once they are depleted the crew has to let down the ramp and reload, not something that is fun to do when there are rag heads in the area with RPGs. The basic load is less than half that of an Abrams.
All variants are way too heavy to be close in any manner to a "go to fight" configuration when they are carried on a C-130. At the beginning of the war in Iraq, a platoon of Abrams was delivered to the Northern part of Iraq in C-17's. This mission with an MGS and C-130 as currently outlined in the operational planning guidance would have put them on the ground with half their basic load of ammunition and fuel.
The Canadian armed forces have done some work with the M113 that has resulted in very good performance against IEDs. I have seen a demonstration that resulted in the M113 being tossed into the air and flipping 180 degress onto its back and the crew would have suffered very minor injuries if any at all. However, the M113 is not as fast and requires more maintenance.
Now the good:
The Stryker is better than a M151 or a HMMWV.