Boggles the mind the Brits could design such a POS as the SA80 and have serious doubts the new version is loved by end users. Hundred of millions of pounds on a gun that possibly is acceptable to a civilian shooter on range day. I wonder what the total cost has been since conception.

I still think they can't be fired comfortably from the left shoulder and see the Royal Marines that guard the Trident have gone to a AR platform that is described as being a "more powerful" firearm?? Both 5.56 and maybe the use of a heavier projectile is considered to be more powerful?? That sounds like it was written by a politician.

Volumes have been written about this failure and I think the quote I post below does a decent job of summing up a poor design and anything but a favourite for those who used it.

"after the most careful preparation, of those whom I observed, not one managed to complete the CQB course without at least one stoppage and some had repeated stoppages. Some 50% of these appeared to be magazine related and a further 30% may have been caused by the ingress of dirt. What happens in the Gulf, happens in Wales, too; and there is not too much sand flying about in Sennebridge. None, in point of fact."23

Indeed, the problems encountered with the use of these weapons in desert or sandy conditions, far from being new ones, had been apparent at the beginning of 1987, with a internal Army document outlining a 'sand ingress problem', as well as the various User and Troop Trials from 1981 onwards.

"It came as no surprise to me that the soldiers in the Gulf should have had these problems, since it was reported to me, by a person involved in the recording of the 1985 trials, that the SA80 had been submitted to the standard sand test three times and each time it failed, miserably. To that person's knowledge, it was never re-submitted after the last failure and, quite clearly, no work had been done since to solve that particular and most significant shortcoming."24

A report, entitled 'Equipment Performance (SA80) During Operation Granby (the Gulf War)', undertaken by the Land Systems Evaluation Team (LANDSET) after the conflict had finished, was scathing in its criticism of the weapon system.

The cocking handle was on the right-hand side, along with its ejection to the right means that the weapon has to be fired from right shoulder, problematical for left-handed shooters, as well as causing problems while firing from left of cover.
Weight – an SA80, fully loaded with SUSAT is just 80g lighter than the L1A1.
Balance problems – the bullpup design along with the position of the SUSAT sight, the use made of stamped sheet steel for the main body and nylon for the pistol grip and fore-grip makes the weapon butt-heavy, a factor that exacerbates the high recoil when firing on automatic.
High-sighting plane – the firer has to expose more of him or herself to fire over cover.
Hard trigger pull – has an impact on accuracy.
The position of selector switch and magazine release catch on the left-side of the weapon but away from the pistol grip means the firer could loose target acquisition if he needs to change magazine or the rate of fire. Also, the magazine release catch could be accidentally pressed when carried against the chest.
The sling cannot be used as an aid to shooting.
The shoulder-butt strap was configured to sit too high when the LSW was in the shoulder and served no useful purpose.
The lack of a changeable barrel and belt-feed option on the LSW might limit its sustained fire capability.

Additional early problems included:

The discovery that the weapon could fire if dropped muzzle first onto a hard surface with the safety off from more than three metres.
The rate of fire was between 50 and 100 rounds per minute less than expected.
The LSW occasionally ejected a case into the firer's face and magazines were difficult to fit when the bolt was closed.17
Concern that use of the SUSAT would lead to the infantryman loosing track of the 'bigger picture' and ignoring dangers on the edge of their peripheral vision.18

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_SA80.html

Well written article.

Should have gone to the Tavor the moment it was adopted by the IDF.