It cost more in (highly profitable) refits that it did to make originally.
It's never been adopted/bought by anyone who didn't get it for free or attached with string to "military aid".
The SA-80 family had so many fault it wasn't funny.
That's because there's no new build A2s, they're all rebuilt A1s. It's a very good rifle.
Yes, and spend as much as buying new, better, rifles on the remanufacturing.
Not when you include the cost of retraining every single member of the Armed Forces and Cadet Forces, additional retraining for every single armourer, probably 15x magazines for each, new rifle cleaning kits for everyone (plus spares), new armourer kits, replacement rifle clips for every single tank, APC, SPG, CVR(T), 43, MAN SV, specialised vehicle, 4T and Land Rover in the Armed Forces, new shelving for every single armoury in the Armed Forces and Cadet Forces, new rifle racks for every single guardroom in the Armed Forces, new posters for every training wing, basic training room, TA/Cadet hall etc in the entire Armed Forces, rewriting the drill manual (and retraining the entire Armed Forces and Cadet Force), new PAMs for the entire Armed Forces/Cadet Forces, rewriting TAMs for every single member of the Armed Forces (assuming they still exist) and probably a load of other costs I've not thought of from the top of my head.
If a new rifle was cheaper we'd have got new rifles. The L85A2 could be the greatest rifle ever made but if replacing it with the M4/M16/Galil/Steyr AUG/whatever else someone thinks we should buy because it's ally as fuck or they've prestiged with it on COD was 25p cheaper then that's what the Treasury would have had us doing.