Cant say I agree that it is a good idea. Makes replacing the barrel an expensive exercise.

Not that the traditional way is inacurate. With the correct torque applied when installing the barrel, the preload is more than enough to not cause any flex at the interface with even overloaded ammunition.

It seems you are talking about high end accuracy - is it in the class of consistent 0.25MOA?

Personally, I consider accuracy as meaning no gaps on paper between successive holes at 100 meters.

I also think that much of the work done on reloading is to compensate for flaws in the rifle.

By flaws, I mean the minor irregularities in how the parts are assembled, such as :

- the tolerance between the tenon and the barrel threads is excessive
- the barrel is tightened to the receiver at the incorrect torque
- not properly bedded, especially when in a chassis
- screws at the incorrect torque

I also think that a properly assembled rifle is ammunition insensitive for hunting purposes.

This one-piece system eliminates most of the big factors, especially when there is an integral scope mounting point present.

This test with several types of factory ammo, in a hunting stock, shot over a sand bag with no rear rest. Very, very impressive.

I am of the opinion that the action/stock interface has much more effect. Worrying about the barrel/action interface torqued to 150 N.m seems pointless.

I think the point of this "monoblock" is more inline with European rifles designed around interchangeable barrels. The locking arangements for those might not always lock up consistently every time leading to inaccuracies.

An assembly of chunky bits of steel screwed together with that kind of force may as well be one piece. An event that would generate the forces required to make them move independently of one another would make accuracy the very least of of one's concerns. 

I am of the opinion that the action/stock interface has much more effect. Worrying about the barrel/action interface torqued to 150 N.m seems pointless.

An assembly of chunky bits of steel screwed together with that kind of force may as well be one piece. An event that would generate the forces required to make them move independently of one another would make accuracy the very least of of one's concerns. 

According to Harold Vaughn, he thought it important enough to dedicate a chapter to "Barrel-receiver threaded  motion" in his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts.

It's an old, out of publication book, a copy is available here :

Rifle Accuracy Facts

I am of the opinion that the action/stock interface has much more effect. Worrying about the barrel/action interface torqued to 150 N.m seems pointless.

An assembly of chunky bits of steel screwed together with that kind of force may as well be one piece. An event that would generate the forces required to make them move independently of one another would make accuracy the very least of of one's concerns. 

According to Harold Vaughn, he thought it important enough to dedicate a chapter to "Barrel-receiver threaded  motion" in his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts.

It's an old, out of publication book, a copy is available here :

Rifle Accuracy Facts

What would be more helpful is if you could quote directly from said book the section that you feel would be relevant to the conversation.

The ebook and TXT file that you linked is a horrible conversion from the original scanned book. The PDF is almost 900mB download. None of them are very useable on a phone screen.

When discussing a particular subject, it would be prudent to use accurate terminology:

https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-the-difference-between-accuracy-and-precision/