Shrike 5.56 belt fed AR upper

J

Jacks_username

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Location
Ottawa.
Is anyone familiar with this upper?

It is an Ar-15 upper that will feed from a belt or from magazines. It appears that the only required modification to the lower is the use of a special bolt release lever. Might be a fun toy. Thoughts re: importing into Canada, and exporting from the States?

ww w.aresdefense.com/product.html
 
As far as I know they have been trying to get it to work correctly for the better part of the last 5 years and are still trying to cover the orders they already have for the same last five years.

As far as exporting from the states.... looks cool, look militarish, won't be exportable to Canada... but probably israel without any problem.
 
Nothing new...
The original AR10 was belt fed or mag fed
[youtube]uPrJVD2xc1A[/youtube]
 
The Shrike is a perfect example of vapourware. This thing is a running joke in the firearms industry and has been for a long time.

It was announced to the public back around 1998. People started leaving $1000 deposits with the manufacturer in 2001-2ish. Since that time it is believed that about 700 people have given them money. Perhaps 50 units have been delivered. They seem to release about 10-20 a year, starting 3-4 years ago. The manufacturer has no credibility when it comes to information about production or delivery schedules.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not it is exportable, because it doesn't really exist.
 
BattleRife said:
The Shrike is a perfect example of vapourware. This thing is a running joke in the firearms industry and has been for a long time.

It was announced to the public back around 1998. People started leaving $1000 deposits with the manufacturer in 2001-2ish. Since that time it is believed that about 700 people have given them money. Perhaps 50 units have been delivered. They seem to release about 10-20 a year, starting 3-4 years ago. The manufacturer has no credibility when it comes to information about production or delivery schedules.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not it is exportable, because it doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...

Yep.

It was almost a slap in the face when ARES Defense actually started producing the AR15 gas piston retrofit kit in fairly decent numbers. In fact we can even get them up here too :p (from Wolverine)

The Shrike is kind of a running joke now, especially on places like ARFcom.

In any case, since the 5.56 links are post WWII, its not like you can use more than 5 per string anyways... best to get 10 round LAR-15 mags...
 
I have seen it, handled it and I loved it. I have seen video of live firing and was invited to fire her. Sadly I had no time. Unlike others I will not comment, good or bad, on the Shrike based on others reports.

Look at the Stoner system, it was the best thing (firepower per pound weight) that the US SEALS could find, they over looked her faults and made her work! The FN FAL (Never a personal favorite) but a top rifle having served all over the world, was faulted by the IDF, look into it and you will find in failed in the hands of conscripts, their priority was chasing the local “skirt” rather than performing basic weapon maintenance. True there are good and bad systems but even with any good mechanical system there is always a “lemon.”. Throw in the fact that not only do you have to manufacture a good system but you have to be able to market it in order to survive, this makes the odds of any new weapon system “making it” today very very slim.

Sadly I doubt we will ever see a Shrike in Canada due to US export restrictions, I have to admit she is one of the very few firearms that I would love to use.
 
Mr Wolverine said:
Unlike others I will not comment, good or bad, on the Shrike based on others reports.
Click to expand...

I did not comment on any attributes of the Shrike itself. Its specifications are impressive, and most of the reviews I have seen of it are positive. I would not presuppose to argue any of that without personal experience.

My comments are aimed at its general inavailability and the absolute lack of credibility of the manufacturer. Ares shopped the first three prototypes all over the US gun market for years to bolster their campaign to collect deposits, then failed to deliver in spectacular manner. To compare their fiscal confidence job to the mechanical teething problems of the FN FAL is ridiculous.
 
Mr Wolverine said:
The FN FAL (Never a personal favorite) but a top rifle having served all over the world, was faulted by the IDF, look into it and you will find in failed in the hands of conscripts, their priority was chasing the local “skirt” rather than performing basic weapon maintenance.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but aside from the poor maintenance, the Israeli rifles were based on the original "FAL Canada", first production model. Many of the features were redesigned on later rifles. The Israeli rifle has the old "paper clip" extractor spring, and trial rifle selector and a number of other features that were improved.

The British, knowing they would have to fight in the middle east (Suez, Oman, Yemen etc), and knowing the basic design was sensitive to dust and sand, made modifications to the bolt, bolt carrier, and the chanels the carrier rides in. All British and Australian rifles have the "sand cuts" and FN offered it as an option on their production, but the Israeli rifles do not have them.

Back to the topic at hand, I am surprised given that Stoner successfully made a belt feed system for the AR-10 and for the "system" Stoner 63, that it has been so hard to make a modern belt feed AR work well.
 
I dont think they ever got the Stoner 63 to work properly....


Although I really think that Robinson Arms should have kept working on the M96 rifle, it seems much a much improved design, based off the Stoner 63, that could have been converted to belt feed....


Ohh well, I guess belt fed semi's aren't really much of a big market in the USA, as much as Sear guns are.
 
hbean said:
if it was possible to get it up here, how does it work with the Canadian laws? 5 round belts would be just a bit annoying.
Click to expand...

yep. for pre WWII belts, each "link" is considered a magazine, therefore you can have as long a belt as you like.

For post WWII belts, the "chain" of links itself is considered a magazine, therefore only 5 rounds per chain.


Thats why Browning M2HB's can have full belts, or the old American 1919's as well.

But if you were to get say, a semi-only MG3 (newer version of MG42) that used 7.62 belts, then you could only have 5-rounds per belt, since it was designed after WWII.

BTW, I dont know if we have semi MG3's or not, I dont know if they even exist.....
 
F22_RaptoR said:
yep. for pre WWII belts, each "link" is considered a magazine, therefore you can have as long a belt as you like.

For post WWII belts, the "chain" of links itself is considered a magazine, therefore only 5 rounds per chain.


Thats why Browning M2HB's can have full belts, or the old American 1919's as well.

But if you were to get say, a semi-only MG3 (newer version of MG42) that used 7.62 belts, then you could only have 5-rounds per belt, since it was designed after WWII.

BTW, I dont know if we have semi MG3's or not, I dont know if they even exist.....
Click to expand...
No, the magazine, being the belt, is exempted, assuming it was designed pre-1945 and is obviously not modified. The belt itself is still considered a single magazine, and it is the magazine that is exempted from the round limitations.
 
DASQ said:
No, the magazine, being the belt, is exempted, assuming it was designed pre-1945 and is obviously not modified. The belt itself is still considered a single magazine, and it is the magazine that is exempted from the round limitations.
Click to expand...


Correct. I brought a few MG3 50 round belts back with me from Europe a couple years ago...
 
Stoner 63's in good condition work like tops -- some SEAL units still have a small lot that beleive it or not are operational.

The AR10 belt feeds never really worked. We have about 10 of the things and I would not call them reliable.

I never got the Shrike, a Stoner LMG (not the 63) or a MK46 is a much better system than trying to adapt the M16FOW to a belt fed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom