The Ruger is just so cheaply made. I can't get excited about a cast metal receiver.
Thre is nothing weak about a Ruger receiver and to claim there is, as you have done elsewhere in this thread, merely demonstrates ignorance on the part of the claimant (that would be you). As others have pointed out, the metal alloy and processes used do more to determine the strength of the part than does whether a part starts out as a casting or a piece of bar stock. In addition, bar stock tends to have maximum strength in the linear direction while castings have equal strength in all directions. You proudly proclaim Remington receivers will withstand 100,000 PSI pressures but I have news for you - even Ruger revolvers, using cast frames and cylinders, have been tested to higher pressures. And they have less metal in them than the Ruger MKII actions.
While it does cost less to machine a part that is cast close to final tolerances than it does when starting with bar stock that has to be hogged out to get close to final dimensions, there is nothing "cheap" about the Ruger receiver. Bill Ruger's philosophy was that "not a penny" should go toward features that don't add function. The result of that attitude was an excellent design that many consider the best commercial implementation of the Mauser concept but lacked cosmetic frills.
If you want a fancy stock, get a Remington CDL. If you want a reliable, accurate and durable rifle (read "bolt handles that won't break off, extractors and ejectors that won't break or fail due to ice or dirt and scope bases that are stronger than anything else available), get a Ruger.
