I must be losing it. The only real decision I see here is the stock; i.e., synthetic or wood, period. The rest seems rather academic. In reality either rifle is capable of killing anything on the planet and in all likelihood the average hunter would only favor the rifle for field use a selective few times.
Sorry to seem so critical, but in my humble opinion I agree with poster ‘monish’. . . it’s not so much the rifle as it is the man behind the rifle.
I don't think you are too critical. But, for context, in the past, I have bought many firearms I absolutely love, but also have bought some that made me wish I had gotten something else. I realize that either of the two will do what's needed (that's why I narrowed it down to them first), but I didn't just want to flip a coin to make the decision--especially given it is a rifle I have not seen or held, the kind of money involved, and the amount of work I later will do practicing with the rifle. So, I wanted to think it through and ask some questions. I provided my reasoning above because I thought someone might correct me on something I missed; I felt I owed a response to the helpful advice on both sides; and I thought possibly someone else might find the information useful. I apologize if that was not appropriate.