Even those are so 2000…
Here is what is sexy in the future
Maybe sexy to you, but in terms of actual utility, let’s just say that there’s a reason why all Tier 1 SOF units of any note in almost every country prefer the M16/M4 platform over all others. 
Wait a minute… Isn’t it blasphamy to suggest that the M16 is not a flaming POS? I know that I get razzed by all the wood-stocked .30 cal guys whenever I bring out my “plastic .22”. Of course, I get much better scores with it than my '03 Springfield, and my shoulder doesn’t hurt even a little bit after a day of shooting, but if it was a decent rifle/round some country would be using it for their military.
I think there’s a really big country floating somewhere between the UK and Japan that uses them.
(I still have my M16 gloves from boot camp.)
No… That can’t be right. All the message boards and ancient Marines at the range agree that the only thing for infantry is the M1 Garand, or maybe the Kentucky rifle.
Old marines is funny.
“Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” had one, used by the George “Baby Face” Nelson character.
SAS guys can be a bit like that, too. My Dad knew one who wanted to take an SMLE Mk III* on a training exercise… They wouldn’t let him, so he compromised on an L1A1.
As for the whole “The M-16 is a POS” thing, I’ve never fired one, but the ones I’ve held certainly feel like they’re liable to break if you try and actually use them anywhere except a rifle range.
And, of course, there’s the fact that the 5.56mm/.223 cartridge just doesn’t have the knock-down power of a .303, .30-06, or 8x57mm round…
I can tell you for a fact that Airmen are trained to use M-16s during Warrior Week, the fifth week of boot camp. How much the USAF uses them outside of boot camp I can’t tell ya, but the gloves were ours to keep and presumably they’d train with guns like the ones they use, right?
I’ve had several, including one built from the ground up, and they’re solid and dependable (I’ve never been in combat so I can’t comment on that). I put my old Bushmaster through hell - near a thousand rounds before running a patch down the barrel wasn’t unusual.
I’ll admit the rattling of the recoil spring in the stock makes it sound as if it’s about to fall apart in your hands, but they never do. The .223 isn’t going to be my first choice for taking down an elk or for reaching out past 200 yards, but I don’t know of another serious rifle round that I’d feel comfortable using up close - over penetration and etc. nor one that I’d subject my shoulder to more than a hundred or so rounds.
As much as we may make fun of the US Army adapting unreliable or poorly tested weapons, there is no way we’d keep this same rifle for this long if it wasn’t good. There’s a line a kilometer long to make the replacement and while they have probably mandated the .223 stay, the basic Stoner design is still around. What… 40 years?
Yeah, I’ve been known to make fun of them myownself, mostly because I’m a sniper at heart, but they’re a damn HOOT to fire, can be freakishly accurate with just a little work, the ammo is dirt cheap, I can’t figure out how to break one, and they seem to get the job done (and I can’t stand the AK, what a hunk of junk that is!).
Dude, you’ve gotta come visit Colorado - I’ll round up my cohorts and get you behind a few different models. Because, you know, I’m fairly sure it doesn’t cost hardly anything to fly here from Australia…
And fetus, that was meant to be a joke. Apparently I’m not as funny as I thought. This doesn’t surprise me much, but I thought casually dismissing the US Military would have triggered a sarcasm meter or two. 
But who knows what the future holds. It’s shorter than the M4 platform, but has a longer barrel length. Claims to be even more accurate than the M4. Being shorter makes it better in CQC. The israeli SF use it and the front line solders are starting to get it, per Wiki. I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell count the Israeli SF as one bad ass unit.
I cannot confirm or deny that certain elements of the IDF have adopted the Tavor, almost every picture that wasn’t in an IMI marketing pamphlet I’ve ever seen shows them using the M-16 FOW.
The SF communities of the ABCA alliance, that is, the US, UK, Canada and ANZAC, are widely recognized to be the most well funded and professionally capable in the world. If the SAS or USSOCOM felt that having the Tavor/M1903 Springfield/Martini-Henry with pith helmets and scarlett tunics would provide them with any advantage, they will have them on their doorstep the next day and probably free of charge, so great is their marketing value to the manufacturer.
They don’t.
The UK and ANZAC armies already have general issue bullpup rifles, namely the Austeyr and L85/86, but their respective SOF units would not touch them with a ten foot pole, and have widely adopted the M16 FOW. SOF units are well know for buying and using whatever works best, regardless of mundane logistical factors, even to the point of having individual soldiers use their own preferred weapons. That they almost universally use either the Colt M4(US, ANZAC) or Diemaco C8SFW(UK, Canada, as well as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands) is pretty convincing evidence that the M4/C8SFW is the finest infantry rifle in the world today.
I’m sure the Tavor works as advertised and is fine for most people, I don’t like the lack of an adjustable length of pull, something that people who do not shoot a great deal while wearing body amour often fail to appreciate, and the fact that it can’t really be used from both shoulders, but at the end of the day these are minor issues. At best, it might be almost as good as the M-16FOW.
I may be in Nevada and California in mid to late October… is that Machine Gun place outside Vegas any good? They’ve got a Thompson SMG there, although it appears to be an M1A1 instead of the M1928A1…
You missed a HUGE gun show here in San Diego by a couple of months, Martini Enfield.
I know! This is old M4 but with gas piston system instead of direct gas piston. Think “M4 without all that dirt inside”. 
I think it’s really time to change my callsign.
“Uzi’s are old”, “Uzi’s are so 80’s”, “Uzi’s aren’t sexy anymore” <sniffle>. Damn! Nothing good ever came out of the 80’s*!
*which, actually, is the time frame I got this nickname from a co-worker because I’d just gotten out of the army and tended to talk about it. And no, I’ve never fired an Uzi, although this Uzi has been fired on occasion! Hehe.
<patsUzionthehead> It’s ok… let it all out… NO! Put THAT away… Now it’s ok…
“M4” just doesn’t sound as good, does it? Sounds like an road in England or something. I’d hold up your stamped metal head in pride, it’s not like the Enfield is a sexy modern firearm (no offense, Martini)
My pride and joy is based on a design from 1911, for crying out loud. Uzi’s and 1911’s and Enfields are retro-cool! We’ll go with that, shall we?
I wonder… Is the username Springfield taken?
Well, you’re getting to the point of diminishing returns with that thing. There’s nothing wrong with the original direct gas system, it is perfectly servicable for most realistic applications. Making the weapon 30% heavier and 10x more expensive for a marginal increase in time between cleanings doesn’t seem to be a particularly worthwhile tradeoff to me.
I’m pretty sure that the SAS guys in Australia have to use a rifle chambered in 5.56mm, regardless of personal preference to the contrary, hence the M4. Some of the STAR (Special Tactics/Armed Response) teams carry the M4 as well, but privately I suspect it’s more to look impressive than anything else.
The NZ SAS guys can carry whatever they like, and many of them lean towards 7.62x51mm for knock-down power.
It’s not like I could buy anything there, unless there’s been some major change to the US GCA that I don’t know about… 
Besides, the last time I went to a gun show just to get some spare parts and odds and ends, I ended up leaving with an I. Hollis & Sons Muzzleloading double-barrel 12ga percussion shotgun. 
None taken! As you say, the Enfield is retro-cool in a big way (as is the M1911), but I can’t see it appealing to the MTV generation. Damn kids and their music…
I’m not sure, but I think most people would assume it was a Simpsons reference, rather than referring to the Armoury…