on the inexpensive rifles,though alot can be said for the Remington 700, It is by all standards a simplified mauser design it retained the basic design but did away with the standing ejector, and the claw extractor, also the bolt guide milled into the reciever, the Safety was simpler and cheaper to produce with much less mechiening,although the bolt was modified, it still functioned well eneough to remain in government service for several years.
It was cheaper to produce than a mauser, but still functioned well, the rifle was not cheap, just cheaper made, so the manufacturer could provide a rifle that worked, but make a larger profit.
Make it cheaper, sell it for a higher price, and net a bigger profit.
Thats how you stay in business. One positive note about the Remington 700 was that with the extra metal there, where you would otherwise have to mill it away for the large extractor the action was stronger, and could withstand more pressure, therefore you could load more potent cartridges in it for greater long range effectivness.
It was cheaper to produce than a mauser, but still functioned well, the rifle was not cheap, just cheaper made, so the manufacturer could provide a rifle that worked, but make a larger profit.
Make it cheaper, sell it for a higher price, and net a bigger profit.
Thats how you stay in business. One positive note about the Remington 700 was that with the extra metal there, where you would otherwise have to mill it away for the large extractor the action was stronger, and could withstand more pressure, therefore you could load more potent cartridges in it for greater long range effectivness.