Ares Shrike 5.56mm [Archive]

usafbalad

07-27-2005, 01:42 PM

I saw this gun back in 2003, not sure if anybody ever posted info or pics of it here on this site.

Sorry if this is a repost.

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-Shrike-006.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-Shrike-200.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-SPW-vs-Ares16.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-uppers.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-beltfeed.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-Magazine-001.jpg

Technical Specifications
Caliber 5.56x45mm NATO, .223 Remington
Weight 7.5 lbs Complete
Barrel 16.25" Quick Change
12.75" - 20" Standard
Optional
Rifling 1:9" Twist Rate
1:7", 1:12" Twist Rate Standard
Optional
Length 28-39.75"
Feed Device 4179 STANAG (M16) Magazine or M27 (M249 SAW) Disintegratng Links or 100 Rd. Beta C Magazine
Rate of Fire 625 RPM
Method of Operation Gas Piston, Short-Stroke Tappet

One_A

07-27-2005, 01:55 PM

usafbalad

07-27-2005, 02:04 PM

Your right it isnt. But I still think its a pretty badass weapon.

scm77

07-27-2005, 02:06 PM

Pretty cool. :)

Aerosoul

07-27-2005, 02:07 PM

Yeah, looks sweet.

Zielony

07-27-2005, 02:18 PM

looks gooooooood..... if you ask me :)

pozdr

Whisper_44

07-27-2005, 02:21 PM

Would be nice if they actually started to deliver on all the orders?

Internet roumor anyway that very few of these ever shipped to people who paid/deposited money.

DPGLAW

07-27-2005, 02:27 PM

From what I have read on here, and elsewhere, those huge "drum" magazines for M4/M16 series/type weapons are usually a problem for the user and not reliable. Is that true? I ask as it seems like a perfectly sensical and great idea to be able to carry that much ammo with you in such a relatively "easy" manner (ie. not in many, many clips, etc.) so I would think that they would be made reliably, can anyone who actually know give me an answer on that???What are the problems, if any and have the drum/box magazines for these weapons been improved to fix such issues?

Regards,
Daniel

American Patriot

07-27-2005, 02:37 PM

what are you asking? this is a proprietary beltfed upper with the regular 200 rnd SAW magazine and they work but I think the cloth ones are better.

Bob the Drunk

07-27-2005, 02:44 PM

I have a friend who was one of the first (read in the first 200) to put a deposit down on the Shrike and he has yet to receive it. Can't wait to play with it though, should be pretty sweet.

The shirke uses the same boxes as the 249. The box doesn't really cause jams. The links can cause jams, but that is not a "box" issue.

As for drums, the Beta-C works pretty well. I have never carried one in a seriuos environment, but i have had few failures using it in my bushy or my colt. I have put probably 3000 rounds through those two guns with the Beta-C.

usafbalad

07-27-2005, 03:09 PM

Here is a link for a video demonstrating the Shrike system:

http://www.subgunvideos.com/videos/Rob Silvers Videos/Shrike Videos/part2-for_macs_and_slow_PCs.wmv

mountainbear

07-27-2005, 03:22 PM

A good thread about this weapon was already done:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34544&highlight=shrike

This pic really shows the compactness of the weapon.
http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-Shrike-vs-FN-M249.jpg

usafbalad

07-27-2005, 03:25 PM

That thing would be sweet to see in 'real' action.

SMGLee

07-27-2005, 04:04 PM

it would be sweet if they can deliver... :roll:

ibstolidude

07-27-2005, 04:09 PM

I saw this gun back in 2003, not sure if anybody ever posted info or pics of it here on this site.

major repost - but I like to so it can stay - and it was posted WAAAAY back.

and I mentioned independently in another thread

usafbalad

07-27-2005, 04:34 PM

Sorry.

ibstolidude

07-27-2005, 05:28 PM

Sorry.
no worries. Repeat posts of value are better than new posts of poop

Former Gold Falcon

07-27-2005, 05:28 PM

It's an interesting concept given the weight loss and various features.

Nonetheless, they're trying to reinvent the wheel (so to speak) and it seems unlikely that the Shrike will be purchased in serious numbers.

Interesting though....

T.

Icarus1

07-27-2005, 08:32 PM

i think controlling the weapon with short bursts will be a lot harder than with the Minimi (because of the lightness of the weapon and the shorter barrel). Also i dont like the very low box magazine... ****e is one of the most important shooting positions in combat. Also a major mistake is the carry handle mounted on the end of the barrel, it will cause a negative accuracy result.

CG51

07-27-2005, 09:11 PM

Looks cool for a gun show, but it defeats the purpose of a carbine, compact, light and quick.

Lt-Col A. Tack

07-27-2005, 10:36 PM

The newest Soldier of Fortune has a great article on the Shrike.

James

07-27-2005, 11:44 PM

The newest Soldier of Fortune has a great article on the Shrike.

Soldier of Fashion, haha.

BMF_EOD

07-28-2005, 12:04 AM

barrel changes?

2RHPZ

09-12-2005, 07:46 AM

The newest Soldier of Fortune has a great article on the Shrike.

SOF Article (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Shrike,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)

gaijinsamurai

09-12-2005, 08:14 AM

Agree with beNder. It certainly looks cool, but I wouldn't want to have to use one. That SAW box would be too cumbersome, despite the extra firepower. I'd prefer to stick with having to change mags every 28 rds.

Scottie

09-12-2005, 08:50 AM

i can see where it got its idea from... shame it couldnt of been a bit more original... otherwise looks quite neat..

crinkler

09-12-2005, 09:59 AM

it would be sweet if they can deliver... :roll:
A few have been delivered. :lol:

crinkler

09-12-2005, 10:01 AM

http://www.biggerhammer.net/mgshoot/kcr/ares_beltfed_side_full.jpg
The orig design was better if you ask me. :(

Scottie

09-12-2005, 10:16 AM

http://www.biggerhammer.net/mgshoot/kcr/ares_beltfed_side_full.jpg
The orig design was better if you ask me. :(

that does look far better compared to its 'wanna-be' m4 look... :roll:

TALOS

09-12-2005, 10:38 AM

http://www.biggerhammer.net/mgshoot/kcr/ares_beltfed_side_full.jpg
The orig design was better if you ask me. :(

that does look far better compared to its 'wanna-be' m4 look... :roll:
I agree, looks like its a serious weapon not a snapon toy ... to me anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

usafbalad wrote:
Sorry.

no worries. Repeat posts of value are better than new posts of poop

I dont know about anyone else but the search button always returns garbage for me or every thread that even has one of the words in the search and I hate reading 300 threads to see if its been shown.

Field_Gunner

09-13-2005, 03:40 AM

why not get a m4 witha heavy barrel and a C-mag?

but it is an interesting concept

Catch22

09-13-2005, 03:53 AM

Cause US market seem to distrust C-Mags, since the Afghan failure rumors. Anyway SAW must have QC barrel, has to be belt fed and also be a steady platform in my opinion. LSW ideas as presented by Brits and Diemaco aren't good choice.

But well, I'm deeply in love with MG4.
http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/MSPO2005/_MG4_04.jpg
(Remov took this pic when I was playing with folding buttstock.)

Michael RVR

09-13-2005, 03:59 AM

Catch22

09-13-2005, 04:22 AM

It seems that company that dominated the market for soft ammo boxes for M249 makes them all in DPCU both 200 and 100 rounders. There were some OG fabric pouches used by US, but they weren't that strudy constructed as the Auscam ones, and today they seem to be standard ones from US to UK. Both HK and FN uses them for their displays. Maybe someone from down under will clarify who makes them?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Catch22/FNPara2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Catch22/FNPara1.jpg
(Minimi Para from FN stall at another military fair had the Auscam 100 round pouch)

One_A

09-13-2005, 08:49 AM

Cause US market seem to distrust C-Mags, since the Afghan failure rumors.

That's not the only reason why we don't like C-mags. They just don't function reliably enough.

Catch22

09-13-2005, 02:29 PM

Guess its American thing. Germans, French and some other SF as well as our central AT unit seem to use C-mags without much complaints on both AR and G36 platforms. Its not that they should replace beltfed but they seem OK option for certain uses in my book.