Larry loves this thing like he loves cake:
We see belt fed ARs pop up every now and then, but then quickly disappear for whatever reason. The one people reference most often as vaporware is the “shrike”… what I found curious was that looking at the product page for the gun shown in the video (the ARES-16), the page itself doesn’t mention the word shrike but in the last picture you can clearly see the upper labeled “SHRIKE 5.56”. Is that because Shrike owns the patent?
If you ask me, this gun looks like the best of both worlds, as long as it’s reliable in reality as it is in the video.
6:52 – Another one for my future LAV soundboard “WALKIN’ THA DOG. WALKIN’ THA DOG”
Thoughts? Are you like me and want to leave a pile of links somewhere then go grab a beer and some steak & lobster on the reg? #MotherfuckersNeverLovedUs #WorstBehavior
P.S. – Larry has been the shit lately, which is why I use the hover glasses pic now instead of “Pay attention to me, I’m important and famous”. I feel that other one is now wildly disrespectful in light of recent videos.
Comments
11 responses to “ARES-16 Belt Fed AR System Been Trill”
He said “…Hundred-round nutsack”, HAHAHAHA, so awesome.
haha
Shrike is the product’s name. It has always been Ares that is the company striving to produce them.
And as many of you probably know, Ares is hated for all the lies and misdirection surrounding the development of the product and the term ‘Shrike’ is a classic internet joke. Probably why they aren’t hyping the Shrike name now as more people know it as a dirty word than know Ares as a dirty word. “But look at how well they work” you say. From what conversations at Knob Creek that I have had and what I have read on the forums, creating a belt fed AR is something of a hand crafted product. No one has really successfully developed one that can be mass produced assembly line fashion. That’s why the years (decade+?) of delay on the Shrike, the sky hi price, and why you don’t see more people doing a belt fed AR.
Ah ok, got it on the “shrike” thing. That’s too bad it’s such a pain in the ass to make / get right.
Here’s a Shrike at one of our shoots here in PA being subjected to inclimate weather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smslXb84c5c&feature=youtu.be
Geoff was taking pre-orders with the promise that the Shrike would ship “any day now” a decade before anyone saw one in the wild (and MANY were pre-ordered years before that to help fund development.) Then they trickled out over several years with lies about how orders were being filled in the order they were received as he sold them for twice what he had promised the pre-orders at and the specification for the base unit was cheapened up until you had to add $1000+ in “extras” to get a reasonably well equipped upper (like a ridiculously priced steel feed tray rather than an aluminum one that bends and warps.)
Here’s some classic Shrike bitching from 2006…( http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/archive/index.php?t-23797.html )…I know guys who were seriously ground floor supporters who waited another six years before receiving their uppers (while new orders being received and dealers were popping up all over) or, in the case of NY residents, ARES refusal to sell to them or even transfer their sale to people in other states or even dealers/manufacturers who could legally own them.
As much as I don’t care for LAV I do have to agree with him. I got a chance to check one out this past spring and they are pretty badass.
And I had to laugh at the “Walkin’ the Dog” also Mike
Words I never want to hear from Larry Vickers 1.”Nutsack”
question!!!! to all
would a belt feed AR go around the cali 10 round magazine laws ????? hummm???
At least until the legislators got back together for the next session.
Anyone else notice the inconsistencies in the editing where it would switch back and forth from belt to box mag back and forth?
@Bob, no I don’t think a belt fed anything would by-pass California’s 10 rd. mag limit. Most States with such silly restrictions consider belted ammo as defacto bottomless magazines. Unless of course someone made a 10 round belt to which additional links couldn’t be added. So I’d bet buried in the fine print of California law is a prohibition on ammo in belts or the guns that use them.