What I meant to ask does one design make it a bit more accurate and customisble.
The Remington is both.
It depends what you want the rifle for.
I don't care about a 3-position safety. 2 is fine, and is arguably quicker to disengage in a hunting situation. But the lack of a
bolt lock makes a gun not a
hunting rifle, in my book. If you drive your ATV to a stand, well, YMMV. But if you're going to sling a rifle next to a backpack, and crawl through heavy brush, that rifle is a useless POS if the bolt doesn't lock down.
What makes the Remington an
inferior design is that the safety didn't work right, so they "fixed" it by removing the bolt lock and pretended nothing was wrong. That's not really the design, but the execution, and I think Remington's poor execution has been addressed. But the push-feed design, while it has never been the top choice for a good military or hunting rifle to be used while on foot, can be made more accurate.
So in that way, and for what the OP is asking, the Remingon
design is superior, regardless of Remington's current quality.
Of course, all-out accuracy isn't the only thing that matters, once you leave the rifle range.
That's why threads like this go all over the place. For one person, a 10 lb. rifle with a big scope on it, a bolt that doesn't lock, and a feed system that has to be used in an upright position and can't extract a round unless it's been closed on that round, is just fine as long as it's really accurate. They won't ever have any idea why that wouldn't be a great rifle for someone who hunts on foot. But some of us do hunt on foot, practice in the field, and really don't even
enjoy spending a day at a shooting bench.
