5 ms·

I understand the sentiment you are trying to express and to some degree I agree but I would argue that the AK is a really bad example that actually is probably

by kls 6y ago

I understand the sentiment you are trying to express and to some degree I agree but I would argue that the AK is a really bad example that actually is probably the greatest example of the Soviet simple utilitarian technology. Out of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) the AK has gone under the least amount of revisions, the biggest revision being the AK-74 where the Soviets decided to go to a smaller caliber to compete with the introduction of the AR and more importantly, really the only revision functionally was the 74 went to a short stroke vs the 47's long stroke. The AK platform has not only survive the test of time, but is probably the most reliable battle rifle built, it is a testament to the genius of Kalashnikov that the AK produced today is functionally the same design as built in 1947. It is also very emblematic of the Soviet thought process in design.

agurk 6y ago
> of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) To be pedantic about terminology the Kalashnikov family of rifles are generally not Battle Rifles. Of your listed examples only the FN FAL and some models of the FN SCAR are considered Battle Rifles. Battle Rifles as a term came out in the 80s to distinguish between autoloading rifles soldiers had fielded since WW2 that weren't assault rifles. Assault rifles are defined as a selective fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge with a detachable magazine. An intermediate cartridge being one that is more powerful than a pistol but less so than a traditional rifle cartridge. Germany pioneered, or at least mass-adopted, this concept with the 7.92 Kurz [short] round in WW2. The USSR ran with this concept - through seeing the STG-44 (German 7.92 kurz assault rifle), capturing some German weapon designers and following the train of thought of the period. This ended up with the AK-47, then later variants on this pattern. NATO countries generally also wanted to do this, see the .280 British - the original cartridge of the FAL (and the EM-2). With one big exception - the US Army Ordnance Corps pushed for adoption of a traditional cartridge, and NATO bowed (in part as the US agreed to adopt the FAL) and everyone ended up with the full powered 7.62 NATO round. Despite pushing for it, the US soon found out that having a high powered cartridge (and the sort of weapon that goes with it) wasn't what they actually needed, and they chose the 5.56 NATO round as used in the original M16 rifle (AR-15 platform). The rest of NATO caught up soon enough, often with platforms based of the AR-18/AR-180. This left them in the 80's with a new type of rifle that we would call an Assault Rifle but they also needed to refer to the (more) modern rifles they'd been fielding since the 2nd World War. This resulted in the term Battle Rifle being created to refer to a self-loading rifle using a full power cartridge with a slew of (optional) features like full auto (the SLR [UK's inch pattern FAL] was semi-auto only), pistol grips (the M14 had a traditional stock) and the like. The 7.62 NATO calibre versions of the FN SCAR are generally considered Battle Rifles, whereas the 5.56 NATO versions aren't.
- kls 6y ago
  I tend to use the term battle rifle as representing rifles utilized by world militaries, I fully yield that you are correct, but I tend to try to stay away from the word assault rifle when trying to convey what I am saying due to it being an extremely loaded word now. Because the conversation can devolve into weather the AR-15, civilian AK etc. are classified in that group, by utilizing the term battle while not technically correct, infers meaning to the reader that I am specifically talking about rifles utilized by the military. That being said, I acknowledge that there is a stricter classification for the two groups and that my utilization of the term is not technically correct.
  - agurk 6y ago
    What is, or is not, an Assault Rifle is clearly defined, whereas a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the similar term Assault Weapon which is less well defined/defined by cosmetic characteristics. Perhaps using something like Military Rifle would allow you to refer to such without being technically wrong?
    - kls 6y ago
      Good suggestion, I will utilize it in the future.

by kls 6y ago

agurk 6y ago

> of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) To be pedantic about terminology the Kalashnikov family of rifles are generally not Battle Rifles. Of your listed examples only the FN FAL and some models of the FN SCAR are considered Battle Rifles. Battle Rifles as a term came out in the 80s to distinguish between autoloading rifles soldiers had fielded since WW2 that weren't assault rifles. Assault rifles are defined as a selective fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge with a detachable magazine. An intermediate cartridge being one that is more powerful than a pistol but less so than a traditional rifle cartridge. Germany pioneered, or at least mass-adopted, this concept with the 7.92 Kurz [short] round in WW2. The USSR ran with this concept - through seeing the STG-44 (German 7.92 kurz assault rifle), capturing some German weapon designers and following the train of thought of the period. This ended up with the AK-47, then later variants on this pattern. NATO countries generally also wanted to do this, see the .280 British - the original cartridge of the FAL (and the EM-2). With one big exception - the US Army Ordnance Corps pushed for adoption of a traditional cartridge, and NATO bowed (in part as the US agreed to adopt the FAL) and everyone ended up with the full powered 7.62 NATO round. Despite pushing for it, the US soon found out that having a high powered cartridge (and the sort of weapon that goes with it) wasn't what they actually needed, and they chose the 5.56 NATO round as used in the original M16 rifle (AR-15 platform). The rest of NATO caught up soon enough, often with platforms based of the AR-18/AR-180. This left them in the 80's with a new type of rifle that we would call an Assault Rifle but they also needed to refer to the (more) modern rifles they'd been fielding since the 2nd World War. This resulted in the term Battle Rifle being created to refer to a self-loading rifle using a full power cartridge with a slew of (optional) features like full auto (the SLR [UK's inch pattern FAL] was semi-auto only), pistol grips (the M14 had a traditional stock) and the like. The 7.62 NATO calibre versions of the FN SCAR are generally considered Battle Rifles, whereas the 5.56 NATO versions aren't.

kls 6y ago
I tend to use the term battle rifle as representing rifles utilized by world militaries, I fully yield that you are correct, but I tend to try to stay away from the word assault rifle when trying to convey what I am saying due to it being an extremely loaded word now. Because the conversation can devolve into weather the AR-15, civilian AK etc. are classified in that group, by utilizing the term battle while not technically correct, infers meaning to the reader that I am specifically talking about rifles utilized by the military. That being said, I acknowledge that there is a stricter classification for the two groups and that my utilization of the term is not technically correct.
- agurk 6y ago
  What is, or is not, an Assault Rifle is clearly defined, whereas a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the similar term Assault Weapon which is less well defined/defined by cosmetic characteristics. Perhaps using something like Military Rifle would allow you to refer to such without being technically wrong?
  - kls 6y ago
    Good suggestion, I will utilize it in the future.