noflier, please don't take this wrong. I don't mean to be rude or to attack you, honestly :)

I am asking you sincerely:
What part of your engineering background taught you to trust that products manufactured and sold by other designers, (be they engineers or not) actually work the way they are intended or purported to work? If Savage said yours' isn't supposed to touch the bottom rail when "properly" torqued, and it shoots well, would you feel better about it? What if they said yours IS supposed to just ride tightly against the front action screw pillar (area nearest front action screw hole), but it won't shoot accurately that way, how would you feel about it? What if it is the most accurate rifle they ever built, but also the ONLY one with a slight gap? Would you encourage the company to change their design?

My point is, it's supposed to hold the action secure, and the THEORY behind it is kinda wack, really. No other company or gunsmith in the world subscribes to the theory that applying three dimensional pressure on the action achieves better accuracy than simple, stress free bedding job. In any event, when building accurate rifles, theory doesn't mean diddly squat if it shoots accurately. More than any other application I can think of, when it comes to stocks and mounting stocks to barrelled actions, the proof is in the pudding. The ONLY thing that matters is results. THat's not to say you should be shooting a rifle with a broken stock that could separate and stab you in the hand, of course, but these things were not built for engineers and the company does not expect you to have to use a torque wrench to remove and replace the stock so as to avoid any safety issues.

Just shoot the dang thing. If it's as accurate as you hoped it would be, be glad. If it ain't then try doing something something reasonably different with it.