Omark collectors club??

[BATattack]

is there an omark collectors club?? i have a omark in all original order in excellent condition (you have to look twice to see that its been used!)

i would be interested to find out the year it was made and information about the letter prefixes on the serial numbers etc

[Woody_rod]

Most state associations would be considered collectors of Omarks...they have plenty for sale that nobody wants

[Bart]

Don't write-off the Omark just yet. I have a .223 built on an Omark action. I took my 2 sons and son-in-law ot to the range this morning for a fun shoot between us, they very rarely shoot. Scores were; son # 1 - 49.1 & 57.4, son # 2 - 55.1 & 52.1, son-in-law - 54.0 & 57.3. These scores on a morning when the temperature was rising rapidly and the mirage begining to have an impact, the boys were left to shoot on there own with no coaching.

[johnk]

While we're speaking of Omarks, I'm on the lookout for a second iteration stock, top guard & securing ring in good shape. That's the model with the skinny stock but with the machined ring that was secured inside the stock channel with a screw from underneath, replacing the first model hoop iron strap.

I have a great low mileage action with shabby wood & metal and a brand new original barrel to fit to it.

[Woody_rod]

Barrels and bullets.....actions are much less important than most people think.

[johnk]

You weren't saying that a year or so back!

[RJNEILSEN]

I agree with not writing off old actions. My Neilsen MN600 built by the late Lloyd Neilsen has served me well this year. I am 100% sure that every shot not in the middle of the target was due to the nut behind the bolt and nothing to do with the action.

I think preserving the history of the equipment of our sport is a great idea. There is certainly a lack of content on the internet relating to Australian rifle shooting history. Maybe when they invent the 40 hour day I will have time to do this as a project.

Cheers,
Ryan.

[BATattack]

I agree with not writing off old actions. My Neilsen MN600 built by the late Lloyd Neilsen has served me well this year. I am 100% sure that every shot not in the middle of the target was due to the nut behind the bolt and nothing to do with the action.

I think preserving the history of the equipment of our sport is a great idea. There is certainly a lack of content on the internet relating to Australian rifle shooting history. Maybe when they invent the 40 hour day I will have time to do this as a project.

Cheers,
Ryan.

exactly! if it wasnt for the budget priced omark then target shooting may not have been affordable to the masses. omarks might not be the prittyest or the strongest action but chances are if the barrel is in decent condition it will keep up with most factory rifles of today.

there are thousands out there but finding one that hasnt been used and abused within an inch of its life seems to be quite difficult.

[Woody_rod]

I agree with not writing off old actions. My Neilsen MN600 built by the late Lloyd Neilsen has served me well this year. I am 100% sure that every shot not in the middle of the target was due to the nut behind the bolt and nothing to do with the action.

I think preserving the history of the equipment of our sport is a great idea. There is certainly a lack of content on the internet relating to Australian rifle shooting history. Maybe when they invent the 40 hour day I will have time to do this as a project.

Cheers,
Ryan.

It is not nice to compare an Omark to the NM600, they are chalk and cheese. Might have some similarity, but so does a std Rem 700 and BAT.

There are so many design issues with the Omark, it would need its own thread to cover them.

[Woody_rod]

You weren't saying that a year or so back!

It may seem that way: however my opinion on Omarks has never changed.

[Barry Davies]

It's easy to be critical -- in retrospect. Back in 1969 when EVERY target shooter in this country ( and others ) had to be re-equiped because the 303 was obsolete, the omark satisfactorily filled that huge gap. Sure, by today's standards it has many design faults but we are talking 42 years ago and they are still around in quantity, and still fill a gap.
The omark was purpose designed and manufactured ( probably in excess of 30000).
Following the omark came the Angel 80 and then the MN300, 600, and the not so popular rear locker -- all patterned on the omark --says something I guess.
I rather think that if we had a modern rifle with the attributes of the omark we may well have more shooters on the mound.

Barry

[bartman007]

If an affordable rifle was put together for around $1500 with sights, that may make it easier to get into the sport.

It would be great to see all TR shooters using the same rifle (action + barrel) and ammo, that way it would be truly those that can conquer all conditions that we would see at the top.

The sport has now allowed so many exceptions, that when you compete you really don't know what you are up against.

While I am all for progress, as has been discussed before, only those that can afford to keep up with technology will remain at the top. The ICFRA targets were required to tackle the improvements in equipment, however if we stayed with a standard kit, this would not have been required

[bartman007]

How about a new class?

R Class - that could stand for REAL Class

But then we'd need to use real excuses, as to why we had dodgy shots

[Woody_rod]

It's easy to be critical -- in retrospect. Back in 1969 when EVERY target shooter in this country ( and others ) had to be re-equiped because the 303 was obsolete, the omark satisfactorily filled that huge gap. Sure, by today's standards it has many design faults but we are talking 42 years ago and they are still around in quantity, and still fill a gap.
The omark was purpose designed and manufactured ( probably in excess of 30000).
Following the omark came the Angel 80 and then the MN300, 600, and the not so popular rear locker -- all patterned on the omark --says something I guess.
I rather think that if we had a modern rifle with the attributes of the omark we may well have more shooters on the mound.

Barry

Barry, this is 30-40 years ago. Merely history and really nothing much to do with the modern era. I would be interested to know which rear locker was based on the Omark? If there was one, it would be 30 years out of date before it ever saw the market. Maybe your facts are not quite right.

The Omark is out of date, has been for many years. You do know that we no longer use the ancient and very large target centers? There can be no comparison between scores of old and those with the ICFRA center. There are people that go on about high scores from the old target, all I can say is: so what? It no longer means anything. Having shot 4 consecutive 60s in F Open in one day on the ICFRA target, I know how difficult it is to do.

Previously, the rifles (and ammo) were inaccurate, hence the large centers. These days, the centers are a lot smaller (due to the improved gear and ammo), which is why the ICFRA center has been successful in showing how many rifles really were not as accurate as the owners thought they were.

Equipment has moved on, as have the target restrictions. Shooters should move on as well.

A good guide is how many AU team members use Omarks? My guess is none. If so, why would this be? Why would people not choose an Omark over a Barnard?

[Woody_rod]

If an affordable rifle was put together for around $1500 with sights, that may make it easier to get into the sport.

It would be great to see all TR shooters using the same rifle (action + barrel) and ammo, that way it would be truly those that can conquer all conditions that we would see at the top.

The sport has now allowed so many exceptions, that when you compete you really don't know what you are up against.

While I am all for progress, as has been discussed before, only those that can afford to keep up with technology will remain at the top. The ICFRA targets were required to tackle the improvements in equipment, however if we stayed with a standard kit, this would not have been required

This was the idea of the Omark - standardising the sport. Is a good idea in some respects, but boring as bat shit in the 99% of other respects.

Your comment about needing the modern gear is not true in all cases. Mike Woods (a UK shooter of some note and mate of mine) uses an original SWING action from the same era as the Omark, and does very well.