Thus, in the narrower sense, a battle rifle is defined somewhat circularly, relative to the advent of assault rifles: any distinction between battle rifles and assault rifles is necessarily comparative, meaningful only by reference to the historical evolution of downsized “intermediate” cartridges of shorter case length, lesser overall size and power relative to standard military rifle cartridges of the time.
For example, the 7.62×39 mm assault rifle round fired by the AK47 is literally and archetypally “intermediate” in case length between the more venerable 7.62×54 mm Russian battle rifle round and the 7.62×25 mm submachine gun cartridge.
In consequence of firing cartridges of longer case length and greater power, battle rifles may also be larger and heavier on average than assault rifles, which are typically carbine-length (and which were consequently also designated “machine carbines” by the Germans and “automatic carbines” by the Soviets): but the most salient difference is in the case length and, hence, overall size, power and external ballistics (velocity, energy, trajectory and range) - of their respective cartridges. Indeed, concern about effective range was the ostensible reason that Hitler did not initially approve the development of downsized “assault rifle” cartridges and concern about external and terminal ballistic performance motivated (and continues to fuel) criticism of the adoption of the 5.56×45 mm assault rifle by the U.S. and other NATO nations. Such opposition to the adoption of “intermediately” powered assault rifles has in turn motivated a normative distinction between assault rifles and battle rifles, whereby the latter are commended by some as “true” battle rifles or more battle-worthy individual weapons by virtue of their more powerful ammunition.