Did it REALLY matter at all?

There was certainly less difference going from 7.26x39 to 5.45x39mm than there was for the U.S. to go from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45.

The story I've heard is that the Russians wanted a higher velocity round, not that they wanted more ammo for equal weight.

From the mouth of Kalashnikov himself (from an interview shown on the History Channel) they changed to a smaller round only because we did.

they decided to go with something smaller (more to carry) and equally deadly just like we did. The result was the 5.45, which would yaw and tumble at very early penetration (more so than the 5.56), allowing even more damage to flesh than the inconsistent fragmenting of the 5.56. It also gave the AKs more control and accuracy, as well as a range that exceeded that of the M16 (allegedly). Unfortunately, like the 5.56, it lacks overall power against things like debris and armor, and the yawing is also invariably range-dependent like the 5.56's fragmenting. Now, the Russians are allegedly considering going back to the 7.62. Go figure.

I always thought they switched because they thought they were missing out. I can't remember where I heard it, but I think it was on some show on the history channel(might have been the Kalashnikov interview). I personally think it was solely a case of "let's copy the Americans", then again, I'm also a little skeptical of the "less is more" philosophy behind the development and adaption of the glorified .22'sevil.

Ummm,

All of the above plus.....

Much of Soviet rifle fire doctrine was built around the use of 2 to 4 dshot bursts, even out to 300 meters. In fact the annual military olympics type event the SOviets sponsored for COmbloc nations included firing to 300 meters in such bursts.

The 5.45m cartridge tied with the small cahnges to the AK to make the AK-74, especially the muzzle attachment made multiple his more likely from a bursts and allowed the burst to stay in the same generall area at 300 meters at least.

I suspect that targets were hit out at 300 meters were likely hit with only the first round of a burst at anyrate.

Certainly the added controllability of the 5.45mm cartridge and AK74 rifle over the AKM in 7.62x39 must be appreciated at more realistic full auto fire ranges.

I suspect the reasons for a call to go back to the 7.62 are a reaction to single hit failures with the AK74 in combat much as callls for a "bigger" caliber round in the US is.

One wonders however if total hits in combat have not gone up enough in combat to make folks cruching numbers (rather than going amongst them) positive that the smaller is better for the Motherland if not the individual soldier. Individual soldiers do tend to loose sight of the "big picture" sort of that old "it's hard to rememeber that the mission is to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in Alligators" arguement. The trooper in the field wants to stop "his" alligator ang the planners want the will and capabilities of the enemy drained.

Some folks actually believe there are pickup trucks other than the Ford F-150 worth owning.

Some folks want a cartridge with a bullet other than atleast .30 in diameter.

WHo has the purse strings or the attention of the king today?

-Bob Hollingsworth

Kalashnikov himself is definitely not a fan of the switch to the AK-74 and 5.45mm ammunition, as others have noted.

However, I'm not certain it's accurate to paint the Soviet adoption of 5.45mm as simply "the Americans did it, we need to copy them." I suspect that their R&D community for small arms eventually had access to every bit of research from here in the US (and elsewhere in the West) favoring the Small Caliber High Velocity approach, however classified it may have been. Between their own research and analysis of Western sources, I suspect they settled on the idea of a SCHV round for the same valid reasons the US and NATO went with it, rather than simply a reflexive insistence on keeping up with the West.

(Particularly since Soviet weapons otherwise tended to go in the other direction -- bigger/larger caliber than their western counterparts. Consider calibers of tank guns: When the West used 90mm, they use 100mm on the T-55. When the west went to 105mm, they went to 115mm on the T-62. When NATO started going towards 120mm, they went to 125mm on the T-64/72/etc.)