Group Comment -Which No 4 Should I lean towards?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Bore condition is paramount; you can't just pick a up a spare barrel at the corner disposals store any more. Aftermarket ones are, of course "new", but not exactly cheap.

The BIG problem with the LB and the Savage, long term, is the potential "hazards" associated with the bolt-head "release" cutout in the guide rib along the RHS of the body. If the Savage has a release catch and no cut-out it is a bit of a rare bird. Only the initial few hundred thousand were made that way before the "simplified" system went into production. It will simply be marked "Mk1", (no star).

Too much vertical "play" in the bolt / body fit in a Mk1* will see the bolt-head "floating" up and down and potentially chipping the corners of this cut-out, (if there is not already some damage there).Yes, I know, millions of users have had no issues with this, especially in the first sixty years of service, etc., etc.

The Mk1/2 SHOULD have its trigger "hung" on a bracket fitted to the body, as opposed to swinging off the trigger-guard in traditional Lee Enfield fashion. This functionally duplicated the arrangement on the British manufactured Mk2 and these retrofits started being done as FTRs in 1949. This later "hung-trigger" system is MUCH easier to true and "trim", (and test for safety / sear-return / engagement, release etc.), because all of the "bits" are on the same piece of rifle.

Furthermore, a Mk1/2 should also have the spring-loaded bolt release catch and not the simple “cut-out” on the body, as it should be an "upgrade" from a Mk1 rifle. It may well have a two-groove barrel, which is NOT a problem, unless it is shabby internally, but this caveat also applies to any likely barrel, be it with two, four, five or six grooves, left or right-hand twist.