What guns do your army use? (Your country's army...)

[Th0r]

The Times last year did an article on the SA-80. Most informative.

In comparison to the weapons the Americans are using in Iraq and Afghanistan, they jam easily and get clogged up due to sand...

*Rolls Eyes*

[s25]

The Steyr is nice I had the pleasure of firing one and it is a very accurate weapon and very light an ideal ground stomper weapon. Low amounts of parts and operated on the same principal as the AK (gas system.) it is good however I do not like its lack of a selector for semi to fully auto instead it uses trigger pressure and a rudimentary selector called an ALO (Automatic Lock Out.) It basically only allows the trigger to go back so far, As the trigger pull controls the rate of fire.
We used to use the FN-FAL which I believe although a heavier weapon was superior largely due to it's robustness and the fact it was .308 (7.62) as opposed to the steyr which is .223 (5.56).

[Necromancer]

We in Canada use the C7, a modified version of the M16. No burst fire, only semi and full auto, decently accurate, not much hitting power(5.56mm). It's got the same problems as an M16 in sand, but performs much better then the base model in cold climates(still freezes in arctic and subarctic though).

[delusional_reality]

The steyr=shit in my opinion I've experienced jams jams jams!
I can't wait until the U.S start using 6.5x39mm Grendel ammunition with a modified M16 or another weapon*
''Arne Brennan achieved a witnessed 1.198 inches (30.4 mm) group at 660 yards (600 m)''

The round is setting new records for accuracy and range, It has greater stopping power than the 5.56 and retains more of it's kinetic energy than the 5.56 and NATO 7.62. The 7.62x39 Soviet and 7.62x51 NATO rounds are too large and heavy for a mobile soldiers magazine in my opinion, and you can hold more 5.56 rounds than 7.62 in a magazine. Secondly the two 7.62 rounds just have too much recoil for a personal weapon when on full auto and in the case of the Soviet 7.62, not enough range to be effective when it counts 200m+ (most modern combats occur within a 300m range even with modern optics)
I can imagine the reason why the Irish changed the FN FAL for the steyr was recoil problems with the NATO 7.62.
The only thing that may prevent the Grendel from becoming standard is it's fragmentation abilities (the 5.56 relies on fragmentation to inflict a kill as you don't want bullets flying through people and killing a civilian behind the enemy which can happen with larger rounds) I haven't been able to find info on the Grendel's frag ability.

*A jam test was conducted in Autumn by firing 60,000 (another more reliable source says 6000) 5.56 rounds through different weapons, here are the results:
XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages.
M16 and M4 carbine had 882. test in summer found ~307 stoppages
The FN SCAR had 226.

IIRC the FN SCAR in the 7.62x39 NATO barrel variant is going to replace the M14 and SP-25 rifles in active use by the US.
The XM8 probably has some issues that the US don't like (they are putting it on hold for 5 years) so I'm going to say I'd want the FN SCAR as my rifle in combat.

Why isn't anyone developing the FN SCAR or XM8 in a 6.5mm Grendel option?
I think that combination would be the ultimate rifle/assault rifle middle ground modern combats require.