Just as the title describes which would be a better value for shootability/collectibility?  I am aware that Savage eclipsed all other manufacturers by a significant margin and the sights are better, but what does that really mean?

Flip a coin for shootability, but Savage seems to command a premium for value. No real reason for this but in the US Savage brings a higher price tag. My Savage has the 300/600 flip sight which means you aim a foot or so low to hit center. If you are going to shoot it a lot then go for one with the dial adjustable sights.

For a Savage to be truly collectible, you need to try to find one that is correct...ie all Savage marked parts. All the parts save screws, springs, small parts etc. were Savage marked with the squared Savage "S" either alone or in a box....

A plain jane, been through refurb 3 times mixmaster Savage shouldn't bring much of a premium over any other No.4...

Find one that is all correct, or at least mostly (You can always find the needed parts somewhere), and its a definite keeper.

Sights are the same as on any No.4 Enfield...Either the micrometer adjustable Mk I "Singer" sight, the Mk II "L" flip sight, or the Mk III stamped adjustable ladder sight. It all depends on which sight you find on your gun. For shooting the Mk I sight is by far superior to the others...you can always buy a Mk I sight for your gun, but if it came with a different Savage marked sight, DO NOT TOSS the original, if you ever sell it, you'll want to replace the original sight on it.

As for shootability...I've never fired a decent No. 4 that wasn't accurate! I love Enfields, always seem to be dead on for me.

Long Branches (Canadians) are exceptionally nice too, very well and carefully manufactured, a far cry from the standard mid-war Brit No. 4...they still shoot great, but Britain wasn't worried much about cosmetics in '43-'44!

The nicest guns I have seen cosmetically and wood wise were always Long Branches!

Good luck, you can't go wrong with an Enfield!

Thanks for the responsese.  PzJgr would you say that the long branch Canadian would be more desirable over either the Brit or Savage make?  The reason why I ask is that the local shop has all three No 4 Mk1's as well as the Ishapore No1 Mk 3.  As you can tell I am relatively new to the C&R mil surplus rifles scene.

First check for matching serial numbers on the receiver and the bolt. Then check for looks and price. If you look the Savage over and see a lot of square edge "S" stamps on the wood and metal pieces then it is pretty much original. If the serials match and you have the money I would buy both the Longbranch and the Savage.

Quoted: Thanks for the responsese.  PzJgr would you say that the long branch Canadian would be more desirable over either the Brit or Savage make?  The reason why I ask is that the local shop has all three No 4 Mk1's as well as the Ishapore No1 Mk 3.  As you can tell I am relatively new to the C&R mil surplus rifles scene.

Well, it depends...again from a collectability standpoint matching numbers are important, as JohnRippert said. So check them all for matching numbers...on a No. 4 look at the receiver, bolt, and sometimes forearm and magazine.

As far as the Savage, again, look for those "S" stamps on the parts...if all or most parts have them, its good...but if most parts do not...its probably not your best choice all things considered, as it would take a lot to get all the correct Savage parts.

Of course some people just want a Savage and don't care about the parts...but it will never be as good as an "all Savage" gun....

If everything were perfect...ie all guns are all matching, all correct...to rank them in order would probably be Savage, Long Branch, Brit...only because Savages seem to be more desired in the US (I guess due to the US made heritage).

But I tell you the Long Branch's are some of the most well made Enfields I have ever seen...

Stay away from the Ishapore, unless it is something unique, like a ver early on (1907 - 1918 manufacture)

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the responsese.  PzJgr would you say that the long branch Canadian would be more desirable over either the Brit or Savage make?  The reason why I ask is that the local shop has all three No 4 Mk1's as well as the Ishapore No1 Mk 3.  As you can tell I am relatively new to the C&R mil surplus rifles scene. Well, it depends...again from a collectability standpoint matching numbers are important, as JohnRippert said. So check them all for matching numbers...on a No. 4 look at the receiver, bolt, and sometimes forearm and magazine. As far as the Savage, again, look for those "S" stamps on the parts...if all or most parts have them, its good...but if most parts do not...its probably not your best choice all things considered, as it would take a lot to get all the correct Savage parts. Of course some people just want a Savage and don't care about the parts...but it will never be as good as an "all Savage" gun.... If everything were perfect...ie all guns are all matching, all correct...to rank them in order would probably be Savage, Long Branch, Brit...only because Savages seem to be more desired in the US (I guess due to the US made heritage). But I tell you the Long Branch's are some of the most well made Enfields I have ever seen... Stay away from the Ishapore, unless it is something unique, like a ver early on (1907 - 1918 manufacture)

I agree with this 100%, the most well made, accurate No4's I've shot and handled (and that's a good number of No4's) are Longbranch guns. Maltby No4's are also very good, IME.

And, if you can find a 1920's era Ishapore No1, buy it. They are very well made and very uncommon. The rest I can do without.

good deal.  Well I went to local shop and they had one Longbranch, several Brit models, and one Savage.  All I would say are shooter grade.  I picked up a Brit one for $119.  I'll try to post pics later.  Brief description, wood is decent (cleaned up nice), metal is decent (bluing has turned brown but no rust, bore and rifling are great, mixed part numbers (oh well its a shooter), and markings are hard to distinguish on the receiver (very very feint except the CAI import re-markings).  Overall I am very happy with it as I had the opportunity to see it and buy firsthand.

Now about the .303 1950's manufactured ammo from the SG, anyone try it?  I realize its corrosive but I thought it might be good for plinking ammo.

Quoted: Now about the .303 1950's manufactured ammo from the SG, anyone try it?  I realize its corrosive but I thought it might be good for plinking ammo.

It'll go bang. It's dirty and corrosive, but for range ammo it's fine just clean up well after using it. I've shot thousands of the stuff.