Belt Fed Ar-15 (Shrike)


PDA






hankdatank1362
September 16, 2007, 02:11 PM
http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/151/Shrike_MG_test/



What possible advantages might this weapon platform have over a standard M-4 or M-16 with a Beta C mag?

If you enjoyed reading about "Belt Fed Ar-15 (Shrike)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Number 6
September 16, 2007, 02:15 PM
Just off the top of my head, reliability(in theory) and it would be easier to carry the ammunition for it.

armed85
September 16, 2007, 02:19 PM
I want one.

trueblue1776
September 16, 2007, 02:24 PM
When they came out (pre selling?) 5 or 7 years (or so?) ago they were $1500, kinda wish I would have jumped on one.

Definitely an oddity, and a very cool one.

http://www.aresdefense.com/

GunTech
September 16, 2007, 02:31 PM
Some people are still waiting for theirs.

BTW, pics of the early version here:

http://www.guntech.com/shrike/index.html

Geno
September 16, 2007, 02:33 PM
I think I just fell in lust with yet another upper. That is a great video, hank.

Doc2005

RLsnow
September 16, 2007, 02:36 PM
i want one...

armoredman
September 16, 2007, 02:37 PM
Interesting. Can cilivians own this, as the lower determines full/semi, correct? Hmmm. Imagine equipped with a crank on a civvie legal lower.

GunTech
September 16, 2007, 02:39 PM
Yes, civilians can own this, except where banned. It's a feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds.

TargetTerror
September 16, 2007, 03:28 PM
I'm a bit confused about the functioning and legality of this product. How does it work, exactly?

Also, how is it legal for a civilian to own? Has the ATF not classified it as a machinegun? Why not?

trueblue1776
September 16, 2007, 03:47 PM
Also, how is it legal for a civilian to own? Has the ATF not classified it as a machinegun? Why not?

It is primarily a feed device, your AR-15 will still function as normal. It has no effect on the fire control group.

Owen
September 16, 2007, 03:53 PM
i don't believe they have made any deliveries yet.

W.E.G.
September 16, 2007, 04:06 PM
You already have to own a registered machine gun in order to get this accessory to fire full-auto.

I see no practical application for this other than an expensive, overly-heavy carbine for machine-gun shoots where licensed dealers/manufacturers are putting the wear-and-tear on post-dealer-sample guns.

Its an expensive gimmick for anybody who would mount it on a semi-auto. Frankly, my tire-and-insurance fund needs that cash more than my gunsafe needs another oddity.

jmorris
September 16, 2007, 04:19 PM
In the mid 1980's there was a belt fed ar upper in guns and ammo mag, and I haven't seen one since.

Evil Monkey
September 16, 2007, 04:20 PM
Its an expensive gimmick for anybody who would mount it on a semi-auto.

You don't understand.

Say you have one of these uppers and one day the crap hit the fan. What happens when there is no law that can be enforced? :D

You just can't go out and get an M249 so you slap on a belt fed upper and "do a little engineering" and there you go, a SAW.

ArmedBear
September 16, 2007, 04:25 PM
I don't think that a belt-fed semiauto gun is illegal in California.

It does not have a detachable magazine, or a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds. M1919's converted to semiauto were available here recently, though I think the supply has dried up.

Conqueror
September 16, 2007, 04:27 PM
i don't believe they have made any deliveries yet.
They have, they are slowly delivering uppers. There was one at the June AAC Silencer Shoot that drew a crowd.

DoubleTapDrew
September 16, 2007, 04:30 PM
I don't think that a belt-fed semiauto gun is illegal in California.

That would be righteous on one of those cali-neutered AR lowers :neener:

A lot of people cancelled their shrike orders after ares kept pushing back the release date for a few years.

CleverNickname
September 16, 2007, 08:52 PM
I don't think that a belt-fed semiauto gun is illegal in California.
No, but it is illegal to link up more than 10 rounds together.

brentn
September 16, 2007, 09:08 PM
In canada belt fed machines guns in semi auto are legal, but they cannot possess links greater than 50 cartridges. In a country where almost all semi auto rifles are restricted to 5 round magazine capacities, the shrike system here would be very very successfull

rosco22
September 16, 2007, 09:17 PM
No, but it is illegal to link up more than 10 rounds together.

Now thats funny !!!

While a nice idea and I enjoy the work put into such a thing . The ATF and the stupid laws and RULES have killed US small arms designs . Its nothing but a waste of time , ammo , Recoil is to much when compared to the 249 SAW .

4v50 Gary
September 16, 2007, 09:47 PM
It would fit in nicely with the weapons system concept.

I wonder if it could be improved with the HK 416 gas piston system? The bolt would be cool to touch after firing off a belt.

GunTech
September 16, 2007, 09:54 PM
What is with the HK pistyon system?

The Shrike does not use direct gas impingment. It uses an op rod driven bolt.

http://www.dndguns.com/images/03a-modular.jpg

MisterPX
September 17, 2007, 04:23 AM
So the Shrike is no longer vaporware?

As to the OT, belt fed has no mag restriction, no stopping every 30 or 100 rounds.

General Geoff
September 17, 2007, 04:36 AM
Happiness is a belt-fed weapon. :D

Number 6
September 17, 2007, 06:17 AM
No, but it is illegal to link up more than 10 rounds together.

Yes and no. It is illegal to link up more than 10 rounds if you are using links acquired after 2000, but if you had the links before 2000 then you can link up as many as you want. How anyone figures out what constitutes a pre-2000 link is beyond me since from what I understand there are no date stamps on the links. So a build using a monsterman grip, a fixed stock, and pre-2000 links should be okay, if I have not missed something.

redneckdan
September 17, 2007, 01:13 PM
heck with the upper, I what dat kewl ninga suit.:neener:

MaterDei
September 17, 2007, 01:32 PM
It is cool, especially when it's being shot by a ninja like in the video.

romma
September 17, 2007, 01:33 PM
Looks cool to me... I wouldn't kick her out of bed... On a serious note, I would take one in that belt bed format...

TexasRifleman
September 17, 2007, 01:35 PM
"getting Shriked" became the joke word for being lied to by a firearm vendor, so keep that in mind.

Blade_Zero
September 17, 2007, 04:36 PM
I would agree that its civillian utility is limited, its real purpose is in the military theatre. I would suspect that civie deposits were just a way to fund development, makes sense, no interference from military committees that don't know what they want.

I can see the high speed guys falling in love with this thing. A compact 8 lb belt fed LMG, gas piston, interchangable barrels ect. Hanging a 200rd belt box on the bottom kinda defeats the purpose of having a fast handling MG, I would think operators would link up each 200 belt into one large 1000 belt and load it into a SAW gunners chest rig, similar in principle to the old AR10 belt feb back pack.

Price is 7k and going up.

To answer the first post, regarding the advantage over the Beta C system, the US Military has prohibited the use of beta mags after several jaming incidents where soldiers lost their lives. The mag well dimensions wont allow the rounds to feed up the tower reliably.

Jenrick
October 9, 2007, 11:12 PM
Blade_Zero hit in on the head, the original project was designed to take over in the military in the area the old Stoner LMG had been. The SAW even in the para config is still considered large and bulky. The idea of the Shrike is that you can stick a 200 rd belt into a M16 and go to work, plus since it takes regular M16 mags, it can be used in a rifle roll as well. Not much more weight/bulk then a normal M4/M16 and a whole lot more rounds on tap.

Did anyone else notice the guy shooting in the video is slapping the heck out of the trigger?

-Jenrick

hksw
October 10, 2007, 02:14 PM
Did anyone else notice the guy shooting in the video is slapping the heck out of the trigger?

Hmm, not sure what you mean. Looked to me like he either had it completely and firmly depress for the entire duration of the belt with the second pad of his finger or firing and letting go for burst shots.

Pigspitter
October 10, 2007, 09:37 PM
I want one

Nolo
October 10, 2007, 10:18 PM
I can tell just by watching the video that the weapon is too light for the rate of fire that they have going on there. The muzzle was jumping around too much for any good accuracy. I know that accuracy is less important in a suppression role, but I don't think that means your weapon should be inaccurate.

yesit'sloaded
October 10, 2007, 10:44 PM
Why did they not make more? The concept obviously works. They also obviously made working prototypes too.

TexasRifleman
October 10, 2007, 10:57 PM
Why did they not make more?

It takes more than a good idea to make a business successful.

Crunker1337
October 10, 2007, 11:02 PM
I too think a standard AR-15 is a little light for belt-fed full-auto fire. You'd just spray and spray with poor gun control.

If you weigh down the AR-15 (not sure how you'd go about that) then it would be more than just a REALLY cool range toy.

Conqueror
October 11, 2007, 02:02 PM
^^^most ARs ARE weighted down these days. Rail system, flashlight, laser, NVS, pistol foregrip... add a 200rd belt of ammo in a box and you'd have a fairly hefty weapon.

Jenrick
October 11, 2007, 03:55 PM
hkSW: The second pad, with what appeared to me to be a death grip on the trigger was what I was talking about. After looking at it again it's not as bad as I was thinking.

The idea of a light weight LMG doesn't mean it's going to be inaccurate. The normal three round burst of the M16A2 is pretty controllable, and full auto out an M4 isn't uncontrollable either (I will agree that it certainly is not as accurate as single rounds). Short bursts (3-5 rounds) out of this sucker I think would be fairly accurate and controllable (it's a LMG, not a DMR) for offhand.

Remember that LMG's aren't normally fired from offhand standing in the supporting/suppression fire roll if trying for any kind of accuracy. The goal of shooting in that position is to put a lot of lead out, to suppress the enemy to break contact etc. I'm curious how well this would shoot of a bipod, what size beaten zone, etc. I'm imagining it's probably a little to accurate, to really perform as required in the traditional MG roll.

Treating it as a M4 with a really large magazine, best sums up it's intended use IMO. A auto rifle, capable of being used to suppress the enemy through a large volume of fire, in a platform that is lighter and handier then the other comparable weapons (belt fed LMG's).

-Jenrick

jerkyman45
October 11, 2007, 06:47 PM
That is quite a cool firearm, but according to what many of you said the company is probably going to end up bust. Maybe if a more established company bought out the concept, like Bushmaster or DPMS, it would become more widely available.

If you enjoyed reading about "Belt Fed Ar-15 (Shrike)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!