The New UTAS AR pattern Shotgun–SHOT Show 2015

in David Higginbotham, SHOT Show 2015

Updated: January 26, 2015 BY Dave Higginbotham

I’ve got a new crush. UTAS-USA, the makers of the UTAS-15, has been working on a new shotgun. This one is an AR pattern gun with a lot of features that could easily make it the industry leader for those looking for AR controls in a tactical scatter gun. We got an early look at the SHOT Show, today, and if the gun lives up to the first impressions it creates, it is going to be big.

To begin with, the gun will be made entirely in the United States. UTAS is bringing machinery in-house to take control of the production process. By making them in the States, UTAS won’t have to face any of the 922r compliance issues that some of the other imports have to contend with. That’s a plus.

[full_width]

The gun has a monolithic upper.

The gun has a monolithic upper.

[/full_width]

The UT-X will make use of a lot of the standard AR parts, and that may be the initial appeal of the gun. There’s a more, though. The box magazines (which will hold 2, 5, or 10 rounds) feeds typical 2.75″ and 3″ shells. This means you can throw most shotgun shells in without a second thought. Some of the other AR pattern shotguns have stumbled on this. Some have even gone so far as to create rimless shells–which work great, but are hard to find.

[full_width]

The length of the UT-X makes photography challenging, especially in the confined space of a SHOT Show booth.

The length of the UT-X makes photography challenging, especially in the confined space of a SHOT Show booth.

[/full_width]

An American made AR pattern shotgun? What’s not to love? I can see this being a serious candidate for a solid short barreled shotgun. With the giant fin they’ve got on this model, the gun may even be versatile enough for home defense and hunting. And it is supposed to sell for under $1,000.

We’re going to be following the developments at UTAS very closely. I personally have high hopes, as the AR shotgun has been a Holy-Grail of sorts for me. We’ll be getting in on the testing phase of the UT-X, and will keep you posted.

[full_width]

The UT-X looks like a scaled up AR-15, at least until you see the giant fin on top.

The UT-X looks like a scaled up AR-15, at least until you see the giant fin on top.

[/full_width]

[full_width]

Dual ejection ports.

Dual ejection ports.

[/full_width]

[full_width]

It is long.

It is long.

[/full_width]

Related Posts:

Related Tags: Buzz, Feature Articles, Guns

George Bill January 25, 2017, 9:53 am

Looks like a spear gun

↩ ∞
Dick M February 1, 2015, 9:59 pm

I’d rather have a sister in the whore house than one of these in my gun safe…it might infect my healthy ones!

↩ ∞
Jumbo Jimbo February 1, 2015, 5:36 am

Oh, and Dave Higginbotham, who wrote this article. You should start writing on Quantum Nonloacaility or String Theory.

Coz you’d have more of a clue about theoretical particle physics, than you do about firearms.

“With the giant fin they’ve got on this model, the gun may even be versatile enough for home defense and hunting. ”

WHAT THE FUCK DOES A FIN ON TOP OF THE BARREL HAVE TO DO WITH IT BEING SUITABLE FOR HOME DEFENSE YOU JACKASS?

You are a fucking joke of journalist. Maybe start writing about insects. Coz you dont know shit about guns IDIOT.

↩ ∞
Todd Bedocs January 31, 2015, 8:56 pm

Good concept but I will stick with a Saiga IZ-109T or VEPR 12 for $1000 or a Mossberg 930 SPX if I Am going on the cheap.

↩ ∞
Micahel January 28, 2015, 4:43 pm

I like the Magazine Concept but the deign ,hurts my eyes. I will stay old school ! Auto Pump Remington,Browning ,Benelli,Mossberg ,Winchester Cya later.

↩ ∞
Charles Cook January 27, 2015, 9:10 pm

Replace the useless and ugly fin with a picatinny rail. More functional.

↩ ∞
wyantry January 27, 2015, 8:07 pm

Well, they make Rem-870 BULLPUP conversions for a lot less than $1k. Just sayin’ . . . .

↩ ∞
Spychotic January 27, 2015, 7:35 pm

Dual ejection ports on a tube receiver means a weak point. I imagine the rib is for stiffening, but why carry it to the end of the barrel? Could achieve the same by turning it into an accessory rail under the barrel. Would like to see a 15″ with a 3″ breacher brake. The mag is the limitation, long and singal stack.

↩ ∞
USPatriot January 27, 2015, 5:31 pm

Too expensive! Too “Artistic”! Nice idea, wrong outcome! Try again! And get the price down!
My Saiga still has you beat!

↩ ∞
- Steve January 30, 2015, 7:17 am
  
  Agree, best bang-for-the-buck in a semi-auto 12. A left-handed model sure would be nice, though.
  
  ↩ ∞
Jeffrey L. Frischkorn January 27, 2015, 4:26 pm

Designed for a reboot of “Battlestar Galactica.”

↩ ∞
Dan January 27, 2015, 4:09 pm

Wow, what were they thinking? Perhaps that even a ridiculous concept would get them some press, and perhaps find someone out there who has a need for an oversized galactic zombie gun!

↩ ∞
Bruce January 27, 2015, 3:53 pm

Gees! Looks like it heats up so much that it needs those fins all around it while it’s nothin but a shot gun! I don’t think anti aircraft guns would need all that heat sink save this one!??

↩ ∞
Ryboman January 27, 2015, 2:33 pm

I wish somebody would show up with a 18″ 20ga AR platform shotgun. You don’t need a 12ga for home defense. 20ga will get the job done and you could practice with the damn thing without killing your shoulder. Good for the wife too.

↩ ∞
WiscoGunner January 27, 2015, 2:15 pm

If you zoom in on the picture of the UTA, it looks like the fin is meshed into what looks like a picitinny rail. I wonder if that fin is held on my screws and could be easily removed to reveal a long rail on top? I could use the fin for hanging tools on the wall in the garage.

↩ ∞
Joe January 27, 2015, 2:11 pm

The fin on top looks absolutely stupid and useless. Also the price is a major deal breaker. Mossberg has you beat, hands down, with the JM Pro 930!

↩ ∞
steve January 27, 2015, 1:51 pm

It’s too long, too fancy, too expensive. There is nothing about it that’s appealing. I’ll stick with my Rem 870!

↩ ∞
Johnny January 27, 2015, 1:23 pm

Not for me!

↩ ∞
Derek January 27, 2015, 12:53 pm

Great concept. Obviously, modifications must be made to cater to various shooters (although it would seem that most shooters want the same thing). To be honest, I’d rather take a Rem 870 Tac & build the damn thing myself. Quite the undertaking? Of course. At least it’ll be fully customizable.

↩ ∞
Thadius Main January 27, 2015, 12:39 pm

If you look closely, it appears as though that “Fin” is running down the center of a top rail 3/4 the length of the “monolith”… I’m guessing (hoping) it’s removable, exposing the top rail for using optics.. Fun? Is that what we’re calling it?! It looks more like an architectural model of a suspension bridge was accidentally opened in CAD when the designer was crafting this… Piece… And he shrugged, then stuck it where it fit best!) So, it “uses a lot of AR Parts”…? How about it uses the FCG (fire control Group), buttstock and pistol grip.. Not exactly the majority of an AR, nor is it that big a deal… Lots of arms use AR control parts for familiarity and you can stick an AR buttstock on everything from a Mossy 500, to an AK, to adding one to a side folding Rem 700 replacement stock these days… It won’t turn heads for that reason.. AR commonality is a “nice to have”, but not a huge selling point these days.

So, to round it off, and I’m trying to include the thoughts of all prior posters here; IF the “Fin” is removable, IF there’s a means to attach rail sections (or they add key mod) and IF it’s got L or R configurable ejection/controls, IF you can drop to an 18″ barrelled version and IF it feeds/cycles reliably? Well then, no worries on the 20 round drums, an aftermarket one will crop up as soon as these start selling like hot cakes and bikinis! Hell, meet those criteria and at $1k even, you’ll have a hard time meeting the demand!

The author needed to have been familiar enough with modern sporting arms and the shooters that buy them, to have asked these questions.. Don’t knock him for putting this together with his own thoughts and questions, not ours! … I’m hoping another, more tactically minded writer with a keener sense of modern sporting aesthetics is penning a more in-depth article as we read this teaser!

-Everyone’s favorite “Pointer-Outer of the Obvious”

Thadius Main

↩ ∞
Mike January 27, 2015, 12:02 pm

I see large fins (ribs) like this all the time, but they are usually on high dollar trap guns to increase poi. (Look out Perazzi). Hoping they make it where you can take it off. AND offer shorter barrel options

↩ ∞
Tony January 27, 2015, 11:44 am

Scrap the “top fin!” Shorten the barrel and overall length to conform with law and CQB! Great idea, but I’m not paying a Grand for this weapon as it is. Fix it before you release it, and I will reconsider a purchase, but no way as it is UTAS!

↩ ∞
Pro2Aguy January 27, 2015, 11:42 am

Remington’s “Tactical VersaMax” has the same problem of the barrel exceeding that expected for tactical use…I like this but for now will be sticking with my Vepr-12.

↩ ∞
Methadras January 27, 2015, 11:42 am

The fin isn’t my problem, my problem is the total lack of attachment points for anything. No picatinny rails or any way to attach picatinny modules. Just from that standpoint I’m staying away. Also, the length is just all wrong. I don’t know what the designers of this were thinking. Did no one look at standard shotgun barrel lengths and make the connection?

↩ ∞
Steve January 27, 2015, 11:13 am

Lose the fin, shorten the barrel to 18 inches, test fire with a full box mags of 3 inch shells to see how long til it jams. If it passes then maybe it might be a consideration. As it stands, no possibility. It is just plain ugly and form follows function.

↩ ∞
Nick January 27, 2015, 11:04 am

Quit COMPLAINING about the “Shark Fin”. Put a Razor edge on it and when you run out of ammo, lop off a few heads with it like a great big freakin Samurai sword! Use your imaginations.

↩ ∞
- Thadius Main January 27, 2015, 1:03 pm
  
  Best. Idea. EVER! a HAHAHAHAHA! Talk about your post-apocalyptic dual use hardware.. And as a sword at this length? Not Samurai (even THEY understood tactical & CQB lengths), nope! ..you could call it a Claymore… let the jokes begin.
  
  Thadius “I told you so!” Main
  CEO, ATS llc
  Applied Tactical Solutions
  [email protected]
  
  ↩ ∞
Tim January 27, 2015, 10:59 am

interesting. what is the purpose of the large fin on top? don’t care one way or the other, just sorta curious especially since so much negative feed-back on it … not against it, just curious. the idea of having the ability to make it eject out of the left side so easily is very good, as are the multitude of magazines which allows someone from states with restrictions (Colorado, New York, etc) to be able to buy it as well. price is out of my range but will keep it in mind … maybe some day.

↩ ∞
Jasper January 27, 2015, 10:46 am

Well from the photos, I just do not see what about this is like a scaled up AR15.
It looks more like a very large bore sniper setup than a close in weapon. Maybe they were trying to make a cross between a goose gun and a deer gun for slugs? I am not sure, but what is the duel ejection port about? No explanation was given. I can understand if it convertible from left to right, but the rest of the weapon is so goofy, I am not making any assumptions about its features!
As for a fast semi-auto shotgun, the Mossberg 930 is really the king right now. With speed loaders, not much can beat it.
A short self-defense shotgun, well there are several pumps that I would feel much better with! But this thing is not short or a pump. But it does look very Buck Rodgers!! 🙂

↩ ∞
dan Clayburn January 27, 2015, 10:44 am

For home defense, it seems a little long. I’d like to see a configuration in say an 18 1/2 barrel set. Perhaps interchangeable. Other wise I like the fact there is no drop at the comb. This means recoil is pushed backward and not upward as on the 1919. Target acquisition will be quicker.

↩ ∞
Kane January 27, 2015, 10:41 am

Shark Fin? Box Fed? AR? Tatical? What ever reason you have to put it down, there’s only one reason to have it: “BEST HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT THEN NEED IT AND NOT HAVE” (even if it looks like the great white shark of ar’s)

↩ ∞
Brian Meyette January 27, 2015, 10:38 am

In addition to all the other negative comments here about this oddball, I can tell you from experience that 12 gauge shells in a box magazine are not a great idea. Even if you are careful as you load it to make sure the lip of each shell is forward of the lip of the shell below it, recoil can and will cause the shells remaining in the magazine to “adjust” and can result in a shell with its lip behind the lip below it. End of shooting until you clear that one. The reviewer mentioned this problem very briefly –

“The box magazines (which will hold 2, 5, or 10 rounds) feeds typical 2.75″ and 3″ shells. This means you can throw most shotgun shells in without a second thought. Some of the other AR pattern shotguns have stumbled on this. ”

which sort of infers that UTAS has somehow magically overcome this problem without addressing at all how they may have done it. I doubt they have really overcome it, and I suspect that what the reviewer really meant was simply that UTAS made no attempt to address the problem (instead of going the special rimless ammo route) , the gun takes ordinary rimmed shells, and you can expect rim conflicts.

↩ ∞
- WiscoGunner January 27, 2015, 2:13 pm
  
  I haven’t had a single issue yet with the box mag in my 12ga. So far so good. I have found that if you’re going to go have fun at the range, the 2 3/4″ shells are much more enjoyable than 3″ waterfowl shells…that extra recoil takes away some of the fun factor. Save that for the home intruder I guess.
  
  ↩ ∞
Mountain Man January 27, 2015, 10:36 am

I can’t be certain … hold on, let me think for a moment … okay, yes, I’m sure of it. 32 minutes into “The Empire Strikes Back”, second squad, third dude in line in the Death Star hallway. He was holding one of these.

A personal mantra of mine: “New ain’t always improved.”

If you can’t gitter done with what’s in your 18-incher (regardless of brand), then a box of 10 in The Marlinator won’t improve your chances. You might as well try and swing a bazooka or BAR around the darkened doorways of your homestead.

Granted, it will be a hit with wild-eyed survivalists, bangers, wanna-bes, gotta-haves, mall ninjas, black gun enthusiasts, and those who simply must “collect ’em all!” (Best marketing strategy ever. But I digress.) With this customer base, UTAS should be able to cover their costs.

But I can’t see this in the arsenal of any “serious” gun owner. For “UNDER A THOUSAND”, I’ll take two real guns.

↩ ∞
Glock_10 January 27, 2015, 10:08 am

Lose the fin, chop the barrel of and give it a 20 mag and I’m a buyer…….

↩ ∞
WiscoGunner January 27, 2015, 9:55 am

Finley, er, finally, a shotgun with a long, tall fin that has no rail on top which would have at least given it some purpose. I didn’t know shotguns put off so much heat that they needed a giant cooling fin. Like the rest of those commenting here, I just don’t get what the designers were thinking! Look at the Kel-Tec…short, tactical with little to no wasted features or space. Not only does this UTA have a worthless fin on top, it will have a long box mag hanging off the bottom. Kind of clumsy for home defense. The Barak BR-99 tactical shotgun seems much more practical and costs a lot LESS money. Ok, I am fin-ished here.

↩ ∞
Evan January 27, 2015, 9:46 am

Yeah, this has got to be the ugliest gun I’ve ever seen. If I want a tactical shotgun, I’m not looking for something with the general dimensions of a Spinosaurus. Also, they solved that problem of AR pattern weapons for lefties with a brass deflector, dual ejection ports are just inviting fouling in. And from a Turkish company? And a Turkish company with their track record? Yeah, I don’t think I’d take one for free.

↩ ∞
Harold Rose January 27, 2015, 9:44 am

I purchased one of the 1st UTS-15’s (Gen 1) and have been very happy with it. People love to hate UTAS but I’ve been enjoying mine for a couple of years now. I plan on adding this new gun to my safe as soon as I can put my hands on it.

↩ ∞
- Pops January 27, 2015, 10:37 pm
  
  My friend bought a UTS-15, on the 3rd round it jammed and never worked after. A little lever that selected which tube to use, broke. It was held in by a tiny screw with coarse threads screwed right into a piece of plastic, or so it appeared. Then I watched a video review where 2 out of 3 UTS-15s broke within a few minutes of each other. I had high hopes for the UTS-15, but for $1k (at the time) it had better be reliable.
  
  ↩ ∞
Don January 27, 2015, 9:40 am

I’m guessing that the ‘fin’ serves as does a sighting, actually pointing, rib on a normal shotgun. Should give one a heads up position on the stock. Pass, I’ll take my 870s, especially with this beast having such a long ass barrel.

↩ ∞
Todd January 27, 2015, 9:24 am

I’m diggin’ it at least at first sight. Initially, I find the razor-back on top to be too much but am wondering now if it may be necessary to add rigidity in the lowest mass way possible. If that’s the case, I’ll buy it as a necessary factor even if it does scream “GAMER!” each time I look at it.

Now then, tell me it’s not finnicky about what I feed it, that the magazines are of quality and readily available and that heat is well dealt with on the “guard” and I’m a buyer!

Todd.

↩ ∞
U-tush January 27, 2015, 9:16 am

Hopefully, the US manufacture is an improvement. Will that mean that they will make the UTAS here in the same US plant as well? The Turks made great tea but that’s about it! They cannot make firearms worth a crap.

↩ ∞
- Kivaari January 27, 2015, 10:07 pm
  
  When the Turkish shotguns started showing up in the 90’s, the one thing I saw were broken locking blocks. Both pumps and auto-loaders would fail within a few boxes of shells fired through them. It was so common, that I simply stopped buying them for the store. It’s too bad that a generally good design failed because the manufacturer simply did not pick the correct steel and heat treating process. Since then when I see “Made in Turkey”, I move on to other makes.
  
  ↩ ∞
rick varner January 27, 2015, 9:12 am

U had me till i saw the fin & 2 foot long goose barrel.

↩ ∞
jim January 27, 2015, 8:29 am

I really like box fed shotguns. The shark fin has got to go though.
It makes it look like a toy.
Cant wait to see how these turn out in production…

↩ ∞
Arno Hendrassen January 27, 2015, 8:28 am

“With the giant fin they’ve got on this model, the gun may even be versatile enough for home defense and hunting. ”
I didn’t know giant fins were necessary for home defense and hunting. Must have item! That’s why 57 Chevies are good for home defense and hunting. The UT-X doesn’t look like a scaled up AR. It looks like an AR with a 57 Dodge fin. I think I’ll put a giant fin on my Rem 870 to increase it’s bulk and eye appeal.

↩ ∞
Jumbo Jimbo January 27, 2015, 7:28 am

Umm hello? What the hell is the stupid fin on top for? It’s a fucking shotgun, not a marlin.

And is that a 20″ barrel? 22″ barrel? Making it useless for close quarters. But it’s a shotgun. So it’s meant for close quarters. Ummm… Dats Fugen stooped.

Only a retard would fantasize over this gun. It’s a piece of shit you moron.

↩ ∞
- Brian Meyette January 27, 2015, 10:22 am
  
  I’m going to take that as an unfavorable review
  
  ↩ ∞
  - mardas January 28, 2015, 5:09 pm
    
    i love my russian made vepr. It truly is the best tactical shotgun ive ever bought and even though it looks crazy, it comes with a five round magazine so i can hunt deer in maine with it also! You can get 12 round mags also.
    
    ↩ ∞
- fenwick January 27, 2015, 11:47 am
  
  Thanks for the 1st realistic review! That fin is a joke… looks like a bbq grill for hot dogs. WAAAY too long and too expensive for a shotgun that, I’m assuming, has zero after-market parts.
  
  For a grand, I’ll take the VEPR every time.
  
  ↩ ∞
LoneWolfArcher January 27, 2015, 7:02 am

I’m in.

↩ ∞
Texasguy January 27, 2015, 6:02 am

Yeah….why not make another attempt at a tacticle 12ga , since their first was such a failure…….if the workmanship and design engineering is as poor on this one as the last, I’ll pass

↩ ∞
Dick McMichael January 27, 2015, 4:33 am

Can you get it with a 18″ for useing it for home defense. ???

↩ ∞
DanGoodShot January 27, 2015, 3:33 am

Lose the fin.

↩ ∞
- Dr. Rob January 27, 2015, 3:11 pm
  
  Yes, lose the fin and shorten the barrel.
  Great concept.
  
  ↩ ∞
  - Mahatma Muhjesbude February 4, 2015, 3:01 pm
    
    Ditto with Dr. Rob. with this thing you definitely won’t be needing any fins because if it turns out to be as good as they are planning, You won’t wind up being the one ‘swimming with the fishes’, LOL. But it’s also got to be able to insert the nice higher cap drum mags also. With that new spreading Pattern laser sight by (forgot at the moment) that shows the expanding pattern spread at distance and is quicker to lock on target than a regular lazer, this certainly does give new meaning to a HDSG or a heavy power tactical CQB. weapon.
    
    ↩ ∞
- Rattlerjake January 27, 2015, 5:37 pm
  
  I’m just curious what AR15 parts it uses. Stock and buffer assembly and pistol grip? whoopee! I would have designed it to take a complete AR10 lower (don’t think the magazine well is big enough on an AR15); then you could just order different uppers (12ga, 20ga, long/short, slug barrels) to mate to your AR10; make 410ga versions for an AR15 lower. As it is I wouldn’t touch it, especially for the price.
  
  ↩ ∞
  - Hub January 27, 2015, 7:14 pm
    
    Just go ahead and release the Street Sweeper.
    
    ↩ ∞
  - JAMES E. SIMS January 27, 2015, 11:06 pm
    
    There is currently a .410 version based on the AR15 lower assembly; it’s called a SAFIR-14 and it is made in Turkey. I can
    order a four round or thirteen round magazine for this gun.
    
    ↩ ∞
    - Benjamin Reynolds January 29, 2015, 1:54 am
      
      The AT-14 is not currently offered for sale in the U.S. There are still some floating around but not enough for everyone.
      
      ↩ ∞
  - Mahatma Muhjesbude February 4, 2015, 3:10 pm
    
    Rattler is right. , With all the money these companies shovel in these prototypes it seems that they never ask people who’ve actually used shit like this for the intended purpose of wreaking mayhem and horrendous damage in the shortest possible time who always appreciated versatility? The shotgun mags might have to be different but the idea that you could buy a paper trail-less upper to fit on your AR-10 lower, which could also be unregistered if you built it out of an 60% kit would be appealing to many and elevate sales potential?
    
    ↩ ∞
- 12 GA Fan January 27, 2015, 6:52 pm
  
  I agree: LOOSE the GAWD-AWFUL uggggly fin! The time save in manufacturing should lower the price considerably. While you’re at it, make a drum for it instead of a ridiculous looking, yard-long ten round mag. Maybe then I’d pay $1,000 for it…. Oh, yeah, how friggin’ long is that barrel? Is it for duck hunting or home defense? Either shorten the barrel or put a nose wheel on it… Now that you gotten comments (constructive criticism) from adults (not 14 year-olds), go back, redesign it, and try again.
  
  ↩ ∞
- Kivaari January 27, 2015, 9:55 pm
  
  Clever. Lose the fin and us standard sized carry handle and A-frame sight tower, or M1913 rail suitable for mounting a Daniel’s Defense style front sight.
  Prior to 1998 one of my customers, a young machinist by trade, showed me his plans. Very similar to this, and simple to operate.
  
  ↩ ∞
- Gregory Romeu January 28, 2015, 2:15 pm
  
  I think I’ll stick with my Mossberg 500A’s with the extended magazine / tube.
  
  ↩ ∞

Send this to a friend

//