I guess what I'm getting at is why was the L85A1 ever introduced into service in the first place, it had obviously not undergone a rigorous enough trial period to uncover it's many flaws?
It's a very messy story, that one. In it's very, very basic form, when NATO were looking for a new general-service rifle cartridge in the 1970s to replace the 7.62x51mm they opened a competition to all NATO countries, and asked them to submit their designs.
We had been working on the Individual Weapon, L64 rifle that fired a .280 intermediate cartridge. So we submitted our cartridge, which basically outperformed most of the cartridges submitted in this NATO trial. However, when Belgium submitted the 5.56x45mm, which was basically identical to the US' .223 Remington cartridge, which was already being used in their M16 rifle, the new Belgium cartridge was adopted as standard.
So, with our cartridge veto'd, we simple took the L64, smashed it with a hammer and shoved a 5.56x45mm barrel and chamber up its bum and tried to fashion it into a working rifle, the L85. Suffice to say, it did not live up to the British Military's normally high standards.
Every "old soldier" I speak to seems to have hated the new "SA80", all the young squaddies I talk to seem to like it, though. Whether that's because we're on the new L85A2 ( I've heard the brand new L85s called the L85A3, though whether that's official, I don't know), and they work now, or simply because soldiers like whatever they're first issued, and dislike all "replacements", again, I don't know.