>>63030841>Battle rifles are largerThe term “battle rifle” is a neologism. The FAL, G3, and M14 were all originally considered “assault rifles” by the West due to being fully automatic and chambered in the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge that was smaller than the antiquated WWII cartridges like 30-06. The US military thought the M14 would be a perfect do-all weapon that could replace the M1 Garand, M1/M2 Carbine, M1918 BAR, M3 Grease Gun, and Thompson submachine gun. The AK was considered a submachine gun by the Soviets (just like the MP-44 was by the Germans), while the SKS became their first postwar standard issue rifle. The paradigm shifted when the Soviets replaced the stopgap SKS with the AK as their primary service weapon. This was done because the Soviet Army shifted from being primarily an army of foot soldiers to one of mechanized infantry, and it was desirable for each infantryman to be armed with a fully-automatic weapon for rapid assaults. The AK also made the SKS redundant and underpowered due to the 7.62x39mm cartridge being used for both. When the M14 first encountered the AK in Vietnam, it became apparent that the AK was at a significant advantage in CQC due to having a higher magazine capacity, being more controllable, more ergonomic, more maneuverable, more lightweight, etc. The M16 was hastily adopted as our new “assault rifle” to better match the AK’s capabilities, while the M14 and other 7.62 NATO assault rifles were renamed “battle rifles” to distinguish them from their later 5.56x45mm NATO replacements.
>The Soviets themselves determined 5.56 was better by switching to 5.45.It’s better in terms of logistics, cost, and controllability in full-auto fire. That doesn’t mean it’s better than 7.62x39 in terms of things like penetration through cover or effect on target. Everything is a give and take. There’s no do-all cartridge just like the M14 wasn’t a do-all rifle.
