I can't speak to the efficiency of the overall action design, but I do believe the argument against the angled-action screw is a red herring. The purpose of bedding an action is to ensure consistency of contact, and there are several ways to accomplish that, including epoxy.
Another way is with an angled action screw without epoxy. Rather than pulling the stock and action into approximate contact, based upon inletting plans, the angled screw pulls the stock and the action into tight contact. It's an elegant engineering solution, IMO.
Customer demand is a funny thing. I was exploring rebarreling my old push feed tang safety M77 from its present very inaccurate state and discovered that some barrel makers don't keep jigs and tooling to square that action when installing their barrels. I don't know if that means it's been tried and found not to work or to work more expensively than the same work for a Rem M700.
I do know I got some scary-accurate groups from my now-sold M77 MkII (CRF), but that was on the basis of my expectations for a hunting rifle, not a target rifle.
Jaywalker
