I'm not an engineer for a gun company, but have worked on a number of rifles with factory pressure points. I would say that 90 percent, maybe 95 over the years have improved (a LOT) with a good float and bed, sometimes just the float.
But for manufacturers, it's "safer" to pressure a point and settle for "okay."
The guns I worked on, most did better floated. But a few shot amazingly worse floated, while they shot "needs work, but tolerable" with the pressure point -- like in the 2 inch range that is okay for many shooters. But they were TERRIBLE floated. I had one Rem that went from a 2.5 incher to blowing 6 inch patterns no matter what was chambered. I did the card trick and re-did a pressure point, then it was a 1.5 MOA gun but the point of aim would change with environmental conditions. That rifle got sold soon after.
I still have another rifle, a military sort-of-collectible, that got the full monty bedding treatment. It finally shot, with full-length bedding and the stock otherwise sealed completely with either thick finish or epoxy.
With all that said, I would bet money that it is a risk calculation against profit that drives the decision to pressure the forearm. The odds going out the door is, if a gun is "acceptable," it won't be sent back. If it goes out floated and is terrible, back it comes. If it's only 5 percent, that's bad, when the "safe" option of a bed point only brings 1 percent back, if that.
There's another factor. If you float something, or change the rifle in any way, guess what? You've voided the warranty, officially. SOME companies, and I won't spill any beans, will work with you if you explain everything you did before calling them up. Most won't.
That all said, unless you have a flyweight barrel, careful, orderly floating and/or bedding almost always improves grouping and consistency. If it doesn't, there's something fundamentally wrong.
