From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to: navigation, search


Additional Images

Additional Variants

FNH USA SCAR 16S Black - 5.56x45mm NATO
FNH USA SCAR 17S - 7.62x51mm NATO
FN HAMR IAR - 5.56x45mm NATO
FN FNAC - 5.56x45mm NATO
FN SCAR-H Precision Rifle with scope, Harris bipod, and 10-round magazine - 7.62x51mm NATO
SCAR 17 Ultralight drop in bullpup conversion for SCAR-H, fitted with various accessories - 7.62x51mm NATO
FN SCAR-L with suppressor - 5.56x45mm NATO

Screen Used Variants

Screen-used stunt FN SCAR-L CQC from Kingsman: The Secret Service. Image from Prop Store of London.
Opposite side view of the stunt SCAR-L CQC from Kingsman: The Secret Service. Image from Prop Store of London.


just a qustion how come orderds on the SCAR-L were cancelled and the US army really liked the SCAR-H yet there are rarly senn in video games and never seen in movies? --Armyguy277 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics is what happened to the SCAR-L in the army and the SCAR hasnt been getting a lot of exposure in a lot of recent games. For movies, since this is still a new gun, we aren't going to see it like M4s which are in the main stream and has been around so long. The only recent movie and TV show that I have seen with a SCAR is Inception, 24's last season and the remake Hawaii Five-0. Excalibur01 22:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The SCAR is a piss poor rifle to be honest. The (initial) rave reviews from SF types were because they were given the (hand fitted test model) rifle and one (hand fitted) mag of (hand loaded specialty) ammo (on a range, in perfect conditions) and told to give their opinion based on that. FN then refused to actually give any SF guys the rifle to do a thorough testing and evaluation. If you notice the units that got the rifles for testing, none of them have much experience with any rifles other than standard issue, and crap that they confiscate and mess around with on the range (much less experience with evaluating a rifle). In addition, the units that got the rifle never were in heavy combat with them. A few SF types managed to "get ahold" of a couple of (full production) SCAR-H and SCAR-L rifles for a while, and their opinion was that it sucked ergonomically, it had piss poor parts fit up, and was made really cheaply.-Ranger01 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if the SCAR is "piss-poor", but general consensus amongst people who have fired it seems to be that it isn't enough of an improvement over the AR series to justify replacement costs. Also, funny story: My range has a SCAR-16S for rental, and when I went there for my 25th birthday, I planned to rent it so that I could try it out for myself. However, when I got there, they told me it was in the shop for maintenance. Not sure what happened or if it's an endemic problem with the SCAR in general, but it seems rather odd that it would need maintenance so soon (since it was only this past May that they got it in). -MT2008 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to your range, and admittedly I have no idea where it is, but there is the possibility that the maintenance could have been routine. As with all things new probably everyone wanted to try it out so it may have had higher than the usual number or rounds pumped through it. --Charon68 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If its intended to replace the AR system it should be able to withstand a "higher than usual number of rounds". I had a chance to fire a 16-S and 17-S and I hated the things. I prefer the AR system to the SCAR as it is. The SF opinion is pretty well summed up here: -Ranger01 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Mk 23 Offensive Crew-Served Hand Cannon"! XD Spartan198 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Dude I'm sorry, but there is no way a SCAR is a crappy weapon. The weapon is made by FNH, who never has put out a terrible weapon in their life. I'm honestly not sure I believe your evaluation of the SCAR and here is why:
The round count before failure is unbelievably better than the AR series, the fit is intentionally a little loose to improve reliability yet tight enough to be accurate. It uses a gas piston operation on top of the looser tolerances in order to achieve AK like reliability. The average # of failures per 10,000 rounds for the SCAR is in the 200's, but the AR family is just under 900. The SCAR can go from 8"-20" barrels with the pop of 2 pins like the AR, and can also change calibers as easily. Ergonomically, all controls are identical with the exception of the charging handle, which is actually placed in a better location! I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is an excellent weapon. The ACR family is cheaper to make, however the versatility of it is terrible right now as it can only switch between 2 calibers in one barrel length.
PS: is 100% mall ninja's and military wannabe's. Soldiers aren't even allowed to use sites like that, and even if they joined after they were discharged, they weapons they talk about weren't even around when they were in. Nothing said there can be taken seriously. Thanks for reading all of this: --Ranger12 09:40, 15 December 2011 (CST)

It's taken me a while to respond to this, had other things going on. The reason the SCAR system sucks ergonomically is not location of controls or handles, its the design of certain things (stock, forend, etc). The ones I got my hands on (S models, not mil versions) just did not feel as solid as I am used to in a weapon (the stock in particular), were front heavy, and the forend sucks for trying to attain a good grip without a vert grip attached due to the rails and it being so blocky. Its a good idea, just implemented poorly. As for PS being full of mall ninjas... well, you either didn't look much, or got banned for breaking one of the many rules and then didn't look. I can tell you that it is one of the few military sites that is NOT plagued by the mall ninjas, you pretty much have to be vetted of your qualifications to be able to talk about anything on there. I don't know where you get your info but soldiers can use pretty much any site they want(aside from some obvious ones) and say anything they want that doesn't violate persec/opsec or compromise the integrity of the US Military. As for the "equipment that wasn't available when they were in" remark... well these guys aren't your average 11B who leaves after his 1 or 2 enlistments are up. They are career soldiers, most are senior NCOs and in their 30s, and they keep in contact after they retire. If a retired SF soldier is in the neighborhood I don't doubt for a minute that they can test out the new "toy of the month". That is if they weren't hired to help design the thing in the first place.-Ranger01 02:52, 17 January 2012 (CST)

This rifle got rolling problem in fullauto--Dannyguns (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2017 (EST)

If your source for this is the video you posted at the bottom of this page, you were tricked by an April Fool's Joke. If not, what are you referring to? --commando552 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2017 (EST)

First & third, but no second generation?

Is there even a such thing as a second-generation SCAR? If so, how did it differ from the first and third gen versions shown on the page? Spartan198 05:16, 15 December 2011 (CST)

SCAR 2nd gen w EGLM.jpg

This maybe? I am not 100percent sure tho. - bozitojugg3rn4ut 05:26, 15 December 2011 (CST)

UPDATE: According to it is the Gen2 prototype. bozitojugg3rn4ut 06:38, 15 December 2011 (CST)
Well, I think I see at least one of the differences: This one appears to still have the 90-degree fire selector, while the third gen model has the same 180-degree selector as the M16/M4 platform. Spartan198 07:16, 15 December 2011 (CST)
The fire selector may be slightly different to differentiate between a civilian and military model... Just saying... --Ranger12 09:42, 15 December 2011 (CST)
Maybe so, but the one pictured above has an S/1/A trigger group signifying safe, semi, and full auto. Spartan198 21:31, 15 December 2011 (CST)
Most military type semi autos have the external look of S/1/A fire selector, but internally only allow the selector to be put onto 1 and the full auto is removed. The only way you would know is by opening up the gun to look at the internals. Just saying... --Ranger12 09:10, 16 December 2011 (CST)
Okay, here's a pic of a civilian SCAR-16S from FN's website [1], which you can clearly see the receiver has only two fire selector markings. Spartan198 17:02, 20 December 2011 (CST)

FN SCAR 16/17

How do these relate to the FN SCAR 16/ SCAR 17 that are listed on the FNH website? Am I correct is saying that the FN SCAR 16 = FN SCAR-L and the FN SCAR 17 = FN SCAR-H?? Any help would be great! :-) --Zackmann08 12:45, 15 January 2012 (CST)

Exactly right. Right now I know a guy who has both rifles and outside of being semi auto only and having a really loud muzzle break attached they are the same weapons. Rockwolf66 12:56, 15 January 2012 (CST)
Gotcha! Thanks man. I wanted to added specifications for the SCARs but couldn't find the -L or -H on the website. Now I know why! --Zackmann08 16:33, 15 January 2012 (CST)


I am in the process of adding specifications for the different variants. Should I add the specs for each individual one? (I.E. Should I have the specs for the SCAR-L Standard, SCAR-L CQC & SCAR-L LB?) At the moment I just put the specs for the Standard model. I can add the others but I was worried it would become confusing and cluttered. --Zackmann08 16:45, 15 January 2012 (CST)


According to TFB, this is apparently the newest version of the SCAR PDW.


Far be it from me to question FN's course here, but I fail to see how this isn't a step backwards for a PDW. It doesn't look to be much smaller than a SCAR-L in CQC configuration. I would think that the main selling point of a PDW, regardless of caliber, would be dimensions making it convenient to carry without getting in the way or store in tight confines such as an aircraft cockpit. This, on the other hand, looks like it's just a standard SCAR-L with a simpler stock, cut-off sight rail, and no vent holes. Spartan198 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2014 (EST)

That isn't a PDW, the P stands for Police. If you look at the text in the photos you will see that it says that it is "adaptée aux besoins spécifiques des forces de l'ordre" which in English basically means that it is designed for law enforcement. Also, it says that it is available with fixed, folding and telescopic stocks, and in particular the fixed would be or zero utility for something made as a PDW. Short barrels like this are desirable for police forces who tend to only shoot over relatively short distances and need the ability to move around inside tight spaces and get in and out of vehicles a lot. As for the other modifications, I imagine the shorter rail is used as there is no need to be able to mount night vision ahead of a sight, it doesn't need the vent holes as it is not intended for sustained fire, and the silencer (which I believe is fixed but not sure, my French isn't good) is to protect the hearing of the officers and bystanders. --commando552 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (EST)
I can't speak or read French, so I had to go by what Steve's article stated and he apparently thinks the SCAR-P is an evolution of the SCAR PDW. Spartan198 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2014 (EST)
I'm fairly sure he is wrong and just made an assumption based on the fact it has "P" after the name (also, it would be pretty bizarre to abbreviate and abbreviation, if they meant it to be a PDW I would have thought they would just call it that), as the promotional bumpf in the pictures is pretty self explanatory if you can understand it. --commando552 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (EST)

SCAR-H larger mag

Since apparently this was done on the civilian version, are these 30-round mags actually compatible with the SCAR-H military version? And I guess would be notable to mention in the page the availability of the X Products 50-round drum mag and the 100-rd Beta C-MAG (source). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2015 (EST)

The gear that guy is wearing in that video, is that really needed?--AnActualAK47 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (EST)
I asked myself the same question :P Oh and I forgot to mention this 25-round mag for it. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2015 (EST)
From what I see here, it seems to be compatible. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2017 (EST)

Bullpup SCAR

Is this a real thing? Looks real to me.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2016 (EST)

(Didn't upload the pic here since it isn't mine)

It's real, but it is just a prototype that some guy made though. I seem to remember that he has made a few of them and actually even given them to LE officers for testing. It is called the SCAR 17 Ultralight (he had plans to do a 5.56mm SCAR 16 Ultralight as well) and the intent was to make it a parts kit to convert a normal SCAR into a bullpup. No idea if he is still working on it or not though. --commando552 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (EST)
It sure needs some work, the placement of the bolt release and mag release looks awkward as hell. Like that "bullpup" AR i once saw.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (EST)
Awkward? This is a revolutionary next-gen ergonomic advancement! You can now hit the bolt release with your chin! All jokes aside, it's a solid idea, but something along the lines of a BAD Lever (and something similar for the magazine release) could do this thing a whole hell of a lot of service. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2017 (EST)

I heard the screws got a problem too. --Dannyguns (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2017 (EST)

SCAR-H Precision Rifle

For now I just put it in the Additional Images section above, but I'm not sure if it should be given its own entry or be added to the SSR (which FN calls the "Tactical Precision Rifle") entry as a subvariant. And before anyone asks, yes, it appears in a piece of media. Spartan198 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2016 (EST)

Somebody can explain me this? I think it will be retired. --Dannyguns (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2017 (EST)

This was posted on April Fool's Day, it is a joke. There is no design flaw with the SCAR-H full auto. --commando552 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2017 (EST)
I don't get it, what exactly is supposed to actually be funny here? Spartan198 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (EST
Have you never heard of Rickrolling? --commando552 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2017 (EST)
That's what's supposed to be funny? Sad. Spartan198 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (EST)

Almost thinked that was crap rifle. :) --Dannyguns (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2017 (EST)

The buttstock could be a little more robust from what I've heard, but otherwise the consensus is that it's a good rifle. Unless you ask that Lance dude who comments on TFB all the time, but no one takes him seriously. Spartan198 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (EST)

Personal tools

Social Media