Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Target shooting and range information. Competitive shooting, ranges, competitions, clubs and events. Free shooting targets.

Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by gherx » 17 Mar 2015, 3:14 pm

Hi guys,

It seems the Omark is the 'go-to' cheap long distance rifle.

If spending a bit more though how do they compare to the newer equivalents. Things like:

Savage 12 Long Range
Tikka Super Varmint
Rem 700 Long Range

Not trying to compare to a specific rifle here, more trying to compare 'generations' of rifle if you know what I mean?
User avatar
gherx
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 82
Victoria

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Jack V » 17 Mar 2015, 3:35 pm

In the long run you spend more to fix up a second hand gun than to buy a budget new one.
The Omark has drawbacks in the way the bolt locks into the barrel . To fit other than an Omark barrel you need an adapter and that has it's issues and cost .
If they had just made the barrel fit like normal Mauser clones they would still be using them . Companies think they can lock up the customer to purchase their barrel only because no one else makes one to fit , it works for a while but in the end it kills the gun off .
If you buy a good one with a good barrel it can be worth it as they can shoot very well but if it needs a new barrel then it's not really worth it .
Jack V
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 823
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Chronos » 17 Mar 2015, 4:16 pm

You pose a very interesting question mate.

An old OMark would still be quite competitive in Fullbore or F standard and even if you fitted a new barrel with an adapter is still only going to cost you about half what a savage F class or Savage BR is going to cost you

A mate bought an Omark a while back, even with its original barrel it's a genuine 1/2moa rifle. Cost him $300 with rings, no sights.

Chronos
.177 pellets through to .416 Ruger
User avatar
Chronos
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2286
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Jack V » 17 Mar 2015, 5:33 pm

It can cost $800 to have match quality barrel fitted and then the adapter is extra . Then there is the cost of the gun and hope nothing else is crook .
I would rather put a few hundred extra into a new more modern gun.
Jack V
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 823
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by BRNOmod2 » 17 Mar 2015, 5:46 pm

Being that the Omark was designed solely for Fullbore shooting and im a long time fullbore shooter I would choose an Omark over all others you listed
BRNOmod2
Private
Private
 
Posts: 49
Western Australia

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Jack V » 17 Mar 2015, 6:02 pm

BRNOmod2 wrote:Being that the Omark was designed solely for Fullbore shooting and im a long time fullbore shooter I would choose an Omark over all others you listed

An old Omark over a Tikka ?
Jack V
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 823
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Chronos » 17 Mar 2015, 6:10 pm

Jack V wrote:
BRNOmod2 wrote:Being that the Omark was designed solely for Fullbore shooting and im a long time fullbore shooter I would choose an Omark over all others you listed

An old Omark over a Tikka ?


a $300 Omark with a new 28-30" match grade barrel and adapter would outshoot a new tikka with a factory barrel every day of the week and would cost the same or less

I'm a fan of my tikkas but let's be realistic. Now if you compare it to lets say a new savage 12 in f class guise then it would be a close call but the savage would cost double

Chronos
.177 pellets through to .416 Ruger
User avatar
Chronos
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2286
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Warrigul » 17 Mar 2015, 6:31 pm

Jack V wrote:
BRNOmod2 wrote:Being that the Omark was designed solely for Fullbore shooting and im a long time fullbore shooter I would choose an Omark over all others you listed

An old Omark over a Tikka ?


Yes.
Warrigul
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1336
-

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by BRNOmod2 » 17 Mar 2015, 8:28 pm

Believed we were discussing rifles suitable for long rang target work. For a long range target rifle yes I would choose an Omark over a Tikka - my Omark is one of the first year production Omark actions, was my fathers fullbore rifle, then my sisters fullbore rifle, then my fullbore rifle, obviously its had a few barrels in its time
BRNOmod2
Private
Private
 
Posts: 49
Western Australia

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Jack V » 17 Mar 2015, 9:12 pm

Chronos wrote:a $300 Omark with a new 28-30" match grade barrel and adapter would outshoot a new tikka with a factory barrel every day of the week and would cost the same or less

I'm a fan of my tikkas but let's be realistic. Now if you compare it to lets say a new savage 12 in f class guise then it would be a close call but the savage would cost double


And if something breaks on an Omark it's much harder to find parts than a Tikka and now it's about the same price before it was half the price .
Since when is full bore shooting exactly the same as long range shooting . It could be long range game shooting ?
How many cartridges are Omarks chambered in or could even be chambered in ? The adapter or barrel tenon gets thin when chambering bigger than 308W .
We hear about these fantastic shooting Omarks but I am yet to see one that is any more accurate than a Sako or Tikka on average .
If they were so fantastic you would not be able to buy one for 300 bucks.
Jack V
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 823
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Chronos » 17 Mar 2015, 9:57 pm

go shoot an omark side by side with a tikka T3 in .308 and tell me the omark isn't more accurate, gives better velocity, isn't better for prone shooting and has a better trigger :crazy:

parts for omarks hard to get are they? wouldn't know. try ordering a factory trigger or an extractor for a tikka and see how you go, i bet there's 100 blokes in nsw alone that would have an omark extractor to sell you buit it could take you 4-6 months to get a part out of finland

yes, the op could be talking about long range hunting, but he doesn't specify hunting at all. and lets face it if you were choosing a rifle and cartridge for long range hunting it wouldn't be a .308 single shot rifle

i guess the op will need to specify what kind of long range shooting he is talking about, until then i stand by my comments that for "long range" shooting an omark is a fantastic starting point, capable of shooting very accurately and even factoring in a new barrel less than 1/2 the price of an equivalent new rifle.

Chronos
.177 pellets through to .416 Ruger
User avatar
Chronos
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2286
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Chronos » 17 Mar 2015, 10:01 pm

http://www.usedguns.com.au/Product.aspx?p=48700

here's one for $350 with sights,

Chronos
.177 pellets through to .416 Ruger
User avatar
Chronos
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2286
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Morro » 17 Mar 2015, 10:59 pm

Jack V
I've noticed you have become somewhat a self proclaimed gunsmith expert on this forum. You have made a lot of very valid points and answered many questions but there comes a time when if you are not an expert on the subject be carefull what you say.
From when I couldnt even hold a fullbore rifle up, having to sit it on a box in the late seventies with my awesome dad to when I left fullbore prone target shooting at ANZAC rifle range in the late 1990's, I used and still own Omark model A's and B's. I competed in the annual Queens shoot and intra state comps ,doing quite well as an A grade shooter. The Omark as stated by Chronos is a very accurate firearm. I think you might find either last year or year before an Aussie took out the prestigious Bisley shoot in England with his dads s**ty old Omark. Omark didnt have the market on barrels, all mine have Black Mountain hammer forged barrels except 2 Model A's that have the chrome lined. Shillen, Madco, black Mountain made barrels for them with no adapter, I think tobler required it. Yes the adapter added strength to the simple design but didnt add centre bulls when it counted.
My rifles are basically 30 years old and have never required any spare parts after getting the bolt safety mods to the model A's to update them to the improved model B's.
I hope you get to shoot one of these one day, yes they are plain and basic but also having a fitter/machinist background, I really appreciate economy and strength of design to achieve the desired task. I came from a rather poor family and drooled over the Angel and Musgrave's the rich guys had with their new high tech stainless fluted barrels but the Omark always punched above its weight
Morro
Private
Private
 
Posts: 15
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by bluerob » 18 Mar 2015, 1:24 am

And I've witnessed Morro shoot on more times than my ears will thank me - he knows what he's saying.
bluerob
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 452
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Warrigul » 18 Mar 2015, 6:34 am

Jack V wrote:And if something breaks on an Omark it's much harder to find parts than a Tikka and now it's about the same price before it was half the price .
Since when is full bore shooting exactly the same as long range shooting . It could be long range game shooting ?
How many cartridges are Omarks chambered in or could even be chambered in ? The adapter or barrel tenon gets thin when chambering bigger than 308W .
We hear about these fantastic shooting Omarks but I am yet to see one that is any more accurate than a Sako or Tikka on average .
If they were so fantastic you would not be able to buy one for 300 bucks.


Parts and barrels are readily available still, made in Australia. OIndeed you can buy a whole new rifle if you wish.

I have Tikkas and even had a Tikka Varmint, I still lay down on the mound and shoot my s**ty old fourth hand Omark, albeit with a scope nowadays.

Still shoots in the top two or three most club days and I have built up three in recent times that all shoot better than their owners.
Warrigul
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1336
-

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by trekin » 18 Mar 2015, 6:46 am

Morro wrote:Jack V
I've noticed you have become somewhat a self proclaimed gunsmith expert on this forum. You have made a lot of very valid points and answered many questions but there comes a time when if you are not an expert on the subject be carefull what you say.
From when I couldnt even hold a fullbore rifle up, having to sit it on a box in the late seventies with my awesome dad to when I left fullbore prone target shooting at ANZAC rifle range in the late 1990's, I used and still own Omark model A's and B's. I competed in the annual Queens shoot and intra state comps ,doing quite well as an A grade shooter. The Omark as stated by Chronos is a very accurate firearm. I think you might find either last year or year before an Aussie took out the prestigious Bisley shoot in England with his dads s**ty old Omark. Omark didnt have the market on barrels, all mine have Black Mountain hammer forged barrels except 2 Model A's that have the chrome lined. Shillen, Madco, black Mountain made barrels for them with no adapter, I think tobler required it. Yes the adapter added strength to the simple design but didnt add centre bulls when it counted.
My rifles are basically 30 years old and have never required any spare parts after getting the bolt safety mods to the model A's to update them to the improved model B's.
I hope you get to shoot one of these one day, yes they are plain and basic but also having a fitter/machinist background, I really appreciate economy and strength of design to achieve the desired task. I came from a rather poor family and drooled over the Angel and Musgrave's the rich guys had with their new high tech stainless fluted barrels but the Omark always punched above its weight

Well said, that man.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 527
Queensland

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Korkt » 18 Mar 2015, 12:38 pm

Bang for buck, can't beat the Omark.

They're competitive and cheap as chips.
User avatar
Korkt
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 339
New South Wales

Re: Omark 44 vs newer rifles

Post by Grated » 18 Mar 2015, 12:40 pm

Chronos wrote:A mate bought an Omark a while back, even with its original barrel it's a genuine 1/2moa rifle. Cost him $300 with rings, no sights.


You beauty :thumbsup:
Thin out their numbers, Ned!

Mmm, thin out their numbers!
User avatar
Grated
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 127
South Australia

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Target shooting - Competitive shooting - Shooting ranges