Omark sniper rifle

[trooper554877]

Sounds to me something like an L39. There for use by the shooting teams, accurate but not for 'service' use but obtained by the QM as needed. In the UK, it'd be called 'PRI issue' (or in Aust UPF issue - Unit Private Fund issue) Incidentally, the Parker Hale rifle was the most accurate in the UK trials to replace the L42, beating the L96 of course (hands down so I've been told by the trials team boss.........) It's downfall was the complicated stocking-up system and keeping it accurate whereas the L96 was a simple chassis design. The PH supplied telescope was 'dire' but easily replaced if need be and the UK military were not keen on the mounting blocks system and wanted a side mounted telescope that could be easily removed and replaced AND retain its zero. But the basic rifle swept the board in the accuracy stakes. Sorry if I've gone off at a tangent. It's an age thing..........

Just got back from eating my tea and i saw your post peter.
I was going to say the exact same thing in regard to the L39.
The Danes had converted some K98's to 6.5X55 swede, added a peep rear sight and used it in competitions etc within the service.
I have one in a safe!!
The distinction between unit issue and trials to me is this.
The sniper rifle set ups have some credible here-say evidence to the fact that they where topped off with a scope and used in a somewhat irregular but still sanctioned (by the fact of Lithy's rifle being smithed at Lithgow therefore having to have had some official paperwork done up) trial against some other rifles that where subsequently acquired and issued.
if we ever see the official paperwork which I really can't see happening, then it will have that 100% seal on it.
As we have seen many times, paperwork is not easily found even with some issues. One springing to mind is the relevance of how many No4's where issued to Australians during and after the war.
I have photographic proof that they where issued to VDC units in Victoria, maybe some infantry units in New guinea and definitely the RAAF in Malaya.
To say that it wasn't an official issue rifle is incorrect, it was just the scale of which it was issued.
The official instructions on the trials is probably long lost, like so many other records of any small arms inventories etc not only here in Australia but also overseas. The best I have seen is the records of every L1A1 or SLR manufacture date, serial number and where it was originally issued to.

So Son I understand what you say that until you see the documentary proof you won't believe or agree that they can be used in a competition but if held that thought process to other theorems about certain model/variants of rifles then we would not have the acceptance of somethings that we now take for granted.

I have just off the phone to another contributor here who has seen the photo of the Omark in the AWM that is labelled as a trials sniper rifle. So maybe the AWM has the documentation??
Cheers all
Ned

[muffett.2008]

I think someone from that era who was involved with the Small Arms Wing at INF. CENTRE may shed some light, the likes of Darby Mathews or Jim Dickson, or maybe someone earlier, any clues you lot?

[trooper554877]

I think someone from that era who was involved with the Small Arms Wing at INF. CENTRE may shed some light, the likes of Darby Mathews or Jim Dickson, or maybe someone earlier, any clues you lot?

Yeah couldn't agree more,
Maybe Bob Peoples if he was still alive,
maybe phil Oakford?
What about John Lamb at the museum?
Cheers
Ned

[Son]

Yeah couldn't agree more,
Maybe Bob Peoples if he was still alive,
maybe phil Oakford?
What about John Lamb at the museum?
Cheers
Ned

I have contact details for Darby Mathews somewhere... will shoot him an email when I get a chance. (He was the man here playing with them) I see John Land a few times a week... spoke to him at lunch today. We did talk about the Omark thing before, he said they were used for shooting practice. Will quiz him again...

Ned... I am saying fill your boots mate! I'm not the scrutineer, not writing your rules either so you don't have to prove anything to me. I just don't agree with how you have characterised the term "trials". I am posting on the other site as well...
BTW, that wouldn't be the only label in a museum that was wrong, mate... they are not renowned for their accuracy in every field they cover.... ask them for the provenance!

[trooper554877]

I have contact details for Darby Mathews somewhere... will shoot him an email when I get a chance. (He was the man here playing with them) I see John Land a few times a week... spoke to him at lunch today. We did talk about the Omark thing before, he said they were used for shooting practice. Will quiz him again...

Ned... I am saying fill your boots mate! I'm not the scrutineer, not writing your rules either so you don't have to prove anything to me. I just don't agree with how you have characterised the term "trials". I am posting on the other site as well...
BTW, that wouldn't be the only label in a museum that was wrong, mate... they are not renowned for their accuracy in every field they cover.... ask them for the provenance!

That would be great if you could,
I think I will leave it with the other post PTO.
It was evaluated/

cheers
Ned

[paulseamus]

Ned

Here is the link to the Australian War Memorial entry on Omark

REL/20344 - Omark (Sportco) M44 Target Rifle | Australian War Memorial

I think you will like the wording " .....however it was also extensively tested as a sniper rifle by the Australian Army

Trials...Evaluated...Extensively tested, they all work for me.

You would think that the AWM would only have an Omark in their collection if the trials were significant.

Cheers

Paul

[muffett.2008]

Ned, you're like a dog with a bone, the pic. at the War Memorial is of a bog standard M44, however, lithy's has different stamps on it, chase him and worry him a bit, good pic's of his markings and a question to the Small Arms Factory might bring a few answers.
Just as an aside note, Uncle Ray posted on Gunboards once as being involved in the early development, try to pick his brains.

[Peter Laidler]

Since we've been in and out of the houses and around the block a few times, will one of you wild antipodeans please explain the shooting competition problems with these 'are-they - aren't they' Omark 'maybe, maybe not', 'were they issued - no they weren't issued' Omark sniper - no they're not' rifles

That way the rest of the world will understand. If it's too political or not Enfieldy enough just say so and I'll go annoy someone else....... like the REME fitters as I want some welding un-done! (I'll wait until it's NAAFI break time first......)

[paulseamus]

Peter

Ned is in the best position to explain the "politics" surrounding the revised SSR's and NRA vs SSAA.

Two national shooting associations each with their own set of standard shooting rules as to what constitutes an eligible rifle for Sniper class in Service Rifle competitions.

Saying any more is probably saying to much.

Paul

[trooper554877]

Seeing as i instigated this post i will explain as simply as possible.
One shooting association that shoots service rifle has a list of eligible or allowed rifles that you can use in competition.
One hasn't and goes on allowing any issued rifle to defence persons, any country.
To make it more inclusive I have submitted a review of the rules to allow any evaluated or trialled rifle to be allowed to shoot in this class (sniper)

this post was to try and ascertain the validity of the Omark in said configuration to be included or allowed under the reviewed rules.
The reasoning is to bring it in line with the other associations rules to allow a smooth transition to one or the other association, that is you can have the one rifle and shoot in all associations competitions without having the need to own different rifles to shoot the same configured competitions.

hope this makes it a bit more clearer for you poor frozen poms!
Cheers
Ned