Good news for me then!!  I must be the 4th example:

4. spoke with Tracey many months ago, still waiting for final invoice.

Just curious, has the military procured any of these? Seems like a lightweight SAW equivialant would be awesome...especially for SOF. (At lease for people like me who have carried the SAW downrange).

You are correct, I'm speculating.  And you are also correct, I'm sure, that there are many people falling into one or more of the the above examples. But I don't think this explains the delay for everyone. I waited 5 years before throwing in the towel and requesting a refund and that was years ago. You just shouldn't have taken people's money that far out.  And when you realized it would that far out, you should have given it back and allowed a no-deposit reservation on those units. But this is past...

But there is something very distasteful in the present about advertising the Shrike as available for immediate delivery when there are people still waiting for their pre-order to be filled. This behavior and "valuing each and every customer" are mutually exclusive.

Have you considered that you have exactly zero credibility?

how's that? I honestly figure more folks would be happy that was appeared to be vaporware finally came out, and that those whom didn't get their money refunded got their rifle. Yes they made a mistake a long ass time ago, but at least they seem to be trying to dig back out from under that.

But if you've got a guy who's making an m249 in a m4 package, please point me in his credible direction so I can buy it.

shot in the dark, but are these things legal in NY (besides flash hider/threaded muzzle)? I am not sure if belt feds are excluded from high cap mag restrictions.

Pretty sure you would be limited to have 10 round links

Bite your tongue, I'm sure you could find any number of uses for this thing lol.  Pest control, absolutely fun chainsaw, home defense, "get off my lawn" device...see, it's not THAT hard to come up with ideas  

Feeding it on the other hand might be a little trickier.  

Not sure how credible but there are multiple companies making these:
beltfed AR
and a belt fed 22:
beltfed 22 AR upper

I like it, if you guys want to troll ARES go to GD

Well, I won't be getting one unless I win the lottery. $5000 is just TOO RICH for my blood.

You're using the term "these" way too loosely.  

The Valkyrie is a product that requires shape modification of the lower, meaning they chop part of your lower up with a saw.  The Shrike does not require the destruction of my 15K Colt A1 NFA lower, which I kinda like.   The second is a .conversion that shoots 22 . . . not much to say about that other than it's a .22.

So, those are hardly "these" by any stretch of the imagination.

These = Belt Fed AR's. And a .22lr belt fed AR sounds like a shit ton of fun so I would say that yes, they do count. Stop being a troll

I, unlike many other on this thread..think Shrike is an AWESOME product that I would definitely purchase if I didn't live in NY :(

I bought a shrike (its awesome) and want a .22 belt fed bad. Looking to find one if anyone knows of one.

that is bad ass.

Relax Francis. Facts don't equal trolling. Check yours before you lump a chopped up conversion of your AR and a .22 conversion to the Shrike; the differences are significant even if lost on you..

Or the poster is exactly correct and the examples you just posted are a complete fabrication and distortion of the truth. You're making up reasons not to fulfill your original contracts.

Ahh there is in fact a a 4th reason people have not gotten their Belt Fed Shrikes! Geoff has recently decided to reclassify the Belt Fed Shrike as a potential "Hi-Capacity Feeding device in and of itself. He did this so he could claim that he cannot complete his legal obligation of filling contracts that are held by people who reside in the few states that have their own AWB in place. ARES made statements just the other day regarding this and then quickly deleted two threads that would have shown to all that he has no intent of upholding his contractual obligations. What is the proof of this, his own statements in those threads and his own letter where he offers us the non belt fed Shrike instead of what we contracted for almost a decade ago.    

The questions below were posed to Geoff on the ARES forum and I have reproduced them here as ARES/Geoff has yet to answer them. ARES/Geoff offers no proof to those of us who have been waiting up to 9 1/2 years for their Belt Fed Shrike as to how and why he now came to the mysterious conclusion that the belt fed shrike is potentially a hi capacity feeding device. It goes against the logic of his own original business model, it goes against the conclusion that several other belt fed makers have reached who actively sell in states with an AWB in place. Why is he doing this because he has no desire and no intent of ever filing these contracts because it is not financially beneficial for him to do so.

To any of you newbies that drink the cool aid of ARES and the SHRIKE, the internet, ARES Facebook page and the ARES forum itself is and has been (until ARES/Geoff deletes them) filled with complaints over contracts not being filled, parts not being delivered, calls and emails never being returned. So lets really think about  who has the ethical leg to stand on. Hmm is it ARES or the untold # of people who have complained publically over the last decade.    


?'s posed to Geoff in his own forum.
Question #1 is posed because Geoff/ARES stated in his own forum that he deleted the posts because they contained more inaccuracies, untrue speculations and insults than were worth trying to correct. Oh let me not forget he then referred us to the forum rules. Hmmm he has had people's money for up to 9 1/2 years but he cannot take the time to tell us what the untruths were and what the inaccuracies were. No one likes insults but never mind the insult to all remaining contract holders that stuck with the guy for 9/12 years and then being told sorry but your out of luck because I changed the definition of my what my SHRIKE is and I leave it solely up to you the contract holder to figure a way to get what you contracted for.  Think about that people!  

1.OK Geoff so tell us what was inaccurate?
2.Did you not develop the SHRIKE while the Federal AWB was in place?
3.Did you not seek a ruling from the BATF that the SHRIKE Belt Fed upper was in fact not a firearm?
3a. What was the determination of that request?
4.Did you not offer both pre and post ban configurations of the Belt Fed SHRIKE?
5.Did you not say that contracts would be filled in the order that the contracts/deposits came in?
6.Did you not accept contracts and deposit money as long as 9 1/2 years ago?
7.Did you adhere to the numerical order of the SHRIKE list when you filled contracts?
8.Did you not sell Belt Fed SHRIKE'S to contract holders while the Federal AWB was still in place?
9.Did you not say on numerous occassions that customer service was ARES # 1 priority?
10.Did you not say that filling original contracts was the #1 priority of ARES.
11.Did you not say that you would not sell Belt Fed SHRIKES on the open market until all contracts were filled?
12. As part of your letter to unfilled contract holders who reside in a states with an AWB did you not offer the "NON" belt fed version of the SHRIKE? I refer you to #3 in your letter.
12 a. Why did you do this?
On June 19, 2012 on this very forum you stated/inferred that your ARES Belt feed mechanism potentially is "in and of itself a hi capacity feeding device" under the law of the few states that have an AWB in place.
13.Did you come to this conclusion on your own or did your legal counsel do so? If legal counsel came to this conclusion are they well versed in these state laws?
14.Did you come to this new interpretation of the ARES SHRIKE beltfeed mechanism potentially being a "hi-capacity feeding device" because you or your legal counsel have been informed in writing by all, some or one of the exisitng states Attorney General's that still have an AWB in effect that they in fact have defined the ARES SHRIKE belt feed mechanism as a "hi-capacity feeding device in and of itself" under the law or that it potentially could be viewed as such under the law?
If so, did you submit the ARES SHRIKE belt feed mechanism to those states authorities for a ruling?
15. If customer service is your #1 priority would you care to comment in a letter to all remaining contract holders the answers to #12,13 or 14.
By doing so it would enable those of us who remain with legally unfilled contracts to pursue answers from state officials within our own states.
16. In your letter to the remaining unfilled contract holders you asked that we submit an "exemption" can you please define what exactly that means? Are your referring to an unfilled contract holder being a licensed FFL thus exempt from any AWB laws? If not, can you explain what it is that you seek as it is such a vague request.
17. Will ARES permitt a contract holder to have their ARES Belt Fed SHRIKE shipped to an FFL within their state or to a friend in a state without an exiitng AWB? Will ARES permit the shipment of a contract holders Belt Fed SHRIKE to an SOT in their state or to an SOT of their choice?

Ok their is not a single violation of any rule in this post, not a single slander or defamatory comment, not a single snipe, no name calling. Just straight forward questions that deserve answers.

I look forward to your detailed answers so we can all move forward with filling our contracts.

This was part of a post that ARES/Geoff deleted from his own forum.
See section highlighted in red below.

So ARES came to the conclusion that the SHRIKE belt feed mechanism is potentially a Hi cap feeding device by itself.
No proof offered, no letter from any AG of a state with an existing AWB that that the Belt fed SHRIKE is for fact or could be "potentially" viewed as a hi cap feeding device in and of itself. If he cared about his customers as he states numerous times in his own forum he would share the specifics as to how and why he came to this new "potential" interpretation of his belt feed mechanism. If he did this we could all work together to over come this. Common sense however dictates that there is no rationale for this new view. What common sense says is the ARES/Geoff does not want to fill its contractual obligations.
I should start a poll      



Posted: Today 1:05:41 PM EDT

Quoted:
FYI per an email to me from Desert Ordnance they have sold semi auto M60 and M249 belt feds in NYS. Clearly component parts in these firearms were made after Sept 1994. They just have to be ban compliant, ie only one evil feature, just like any other firearm sold in NYS. If it is legal for Desert Ordnance to do it, then it is certainly legal for ARES to sell their "upper" which is in fact not a firearm by their own admision!!!

We all know it is up to the end user to make sure they are in compliance with the law before installing the upper on a "firearm". If you have a preban lower you can have an an ARES SHRIKE upper that has a threaded muzzle, if not then it cannot have a threaded muzzle. If ARES ie Geoff wants to infer that their "SHRIKE upper" is in fact a hi capacity feeding device in and of itself then that may come back to bite him in the ass down the line.

Insult to Geoff removed in an effort play nice.

Below was ARES response word for word


Thanks for sharing their experience with us and please don't take this negatively because that's not the intent, but we don't really care how another company conducts their business or what they ship to NYS or elsewhere. The bottom line is that we interpret current language to potentially restrict certain products in certain areas. In the case that we have interpreted correctly, then we have outlined options for our customers to complete their transctions with us. Thanks.

Hey Geoff,

As I am a pack rat I dug out an old SMALL ARMS REVIEW dated March 2003 Vol 6 No 6 in which an article was written by Jeff W. Zimba.
It was Shrike 5.56 Advanced Weapons System.
Of course you remember this article as you participated in the interview process and the SHRIKE Test firing for the article.
Let me refer you to Page 40 first paragraph, here is a direct quote form the Author. "This new upper receiver assembly is an accessory and not a firearm in and of itself"  I just love that expression "in and of itself". Still laughig how I have been using it in every post and I was not even aware that it was used back in 2003.
Oh I do not recall ever reading a retraction of the above statement in any later SAR that the SHRIKE was anything other then an accessory aka an upper

I read the article and then re-read it just to make sure and there was not a single word about the SHRIKE Belt Feed Mechanism being a "Hi capacity feeding device", not a word about it "potentially" being viewed as such. So odd not to have read a single question from the author about this and not a single word of any concern as to how the federal AWB law that was in effect at the time might impact the legality of the belt feed mechanism.

Let me quote a line from the article page 5 at bottom "For those who have purchased their AR-15 since 1994 and have guns considered to be "post-ban" ARES Defense is offering a Shrike in a post ban configuration."
Yes, the SHRIKE Belt Fed pre-offer and contract says this as well and Tracey your employee asked me what configuration I wanted my SHRIKE in when she called me back in Dec 2011.

Just an FYI yet again that the NYS AWB mimics the Federal Ban (NO NEW HI-CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICES for civilians). So with this knowledge, how was it again that you were going to sell a single Belt Fed SHRIKE to anyone at the time given the Federal AWB would have made the manufacture of a new Hi-capacity feeding device illegal but for LE, Miitary or an FFL. See under the Federal AWB if your SHRIKE Belt Feeding mechanism was classified as a Hi-capacity feeding in and of itself not even the civilian Form 4 M16 or DIAS owner could have purchased one.

I have been reading alot as I have every SAR dating back to the begining. I just want to see what else I might find that can help you Geoff get me my Belt Fed SHRIKE that you and I legally contracted for back in Sept 2002

Geoff its me again, sorry but I was busy going through about 100 old SAR mags and even some older Machine Gun News mag's.
See after you deleted a thread that contained a post by me from your private ARES forum the other day that contained information about another company selling newly made semi auto belt fed firearms in a state like NY that has the dreaded AWB still in place it got me thinking about M60's. Remember I said Semi Auto Belt Fed "Firearms" not uppers, not accessories but regulated items.
That post can be seen two above this one ^

Why did it get me thinking about M60's because I recalled that there was a guy that designed a semi auto belt fed M60 back in the 90's. He got approval to sell it as a title one firearm from the BATF in Aug 1994 just one month before the Federal AWB went into place. His name was John Weaver and his company was JRW Sports. Sadly John passsed away in the fall of 1999. Had that not occurred I have no doubt we would be seeing Semi auto M60's in 5.56 everywhere and Form 4 60 owners would be blasting away with 5.56 kits in their 60's, but it was not to be. My point of this is that had the BATF veiwed his belt feeding mechanism to be a hi-capacity feeding device they would have shut him down ASAP as he was the newest kid on the block.

I refer you to SMALL ARMS REVIEW Vol 1 No 6 dated March 1998 page 75. According to the article written by Gary E. Reisenwitz John did not start shipping kits or firearms until June of 1996. Wow almost a full two years had passed since the AWB was imposed and the BATF did not call him and say sorry your "belt feeding mechanism" is now a newly made hi cap we gotta shut you down but for sales to FFL's, LE and the Military. All John had to do was to comply with the new AWB as it related to threaded muzzles which was a no, no as we all know back in those days. Oh and no evil flash hider!

I will also refer you to the Nov 2004 issue of SMALL ARMS REVIEW Vol 8 No 2 in which Mark Genovese writes about the Semi Auto RPD that Historic Arms created. Yes, at the time of the article the federal AWB had sunsetted but the semi auto RPD had been out prior to this. Do you know what this article had in common with the article about your SHRIKE in SAR, not a single word about their belt feeding mechanism being a hi capacity feeding device in and of itself.

Hey Geoff one more tidbit
How is that Ohio Ordnance made and sold water cooled semi auto 1928 style belt feds, 1919's, and M37's during the federal AWB and in NY.
How is it that TNW Firearms Inc made and sold semi auto 1919 style belt feds as well as semiauto M2HB belt feds during the federal ban and in NY.
How is it that Lakeside Machine made and sold semi auto 22 cal belt feds during the federal ban and in NY.
How is it that Tippman made and sold semi auto belt feds during the federal AWB and in NY.
and let us not forget about
US Ordance the parent company to Desert Ordnance mentioned a few posts up.
How did US Ordnance make and sell semi auto belt fed 1919's and semi auto belt fed M2HB and semi auto belt fed Vickers and semi auto belt fed M60's during the federal ban and in NY.

Were, and are all of these companies wrong in their interpretation of what their belt feed mechanism is?
Are all of those devices really "HI-CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICES"?
Did all of these companies committ felonies when they sold these during the federal ban and in NY where there is still a ban?

So we have all this evidence that a belt feeding mechanism is in fact NOT a Hi-capacity feeding device, all of this evidence that a belt feeding mechanism is not "POTENTIALLY" to use your words
a Hi-capacity feeding device.

If they were anything else wouldn't the ATF have picked up on this and made some cases against the above and perhaps ARES during the ban.

Why don't we just call it a day and resign yourself to the fact that you are incorrect and that you will have to accept the fact that you will lose money or "potentially" lose money when you complete your legal obligation of selling the remaining depositors who reside in states with an AWB their BELT FED SHRIKE UPPERS.

After reading all of those back issues of SAR and seeing ARES old ad's I am just glad I signed my legally binding contract for a belt fed SHRIKE at $2,595 and not at $2,995 or $3,495.

As stated earlier I will continue my reseach in order to help you Geoff. Let me know if I can help in any other way as I am here for you Geoff.
I will not abandon you or our relationship after just 9 1/2 years.

Someone needs a nap

make me a sandwich.

Well I am downright shocked that Geoff nuked all of the above posts and other threads that were crossed posted in his own personal ARES section

Just for the record. This is what it looked like the last time I saw it.

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***


***


***


***


***


***

***

I don't have a sandwich but I got some popcorn if you want some . . .

60 day rule