A good barrel and ammo deliver accuracy. A free float just helps keep a sling or the shooter from moving the barrel, it doesn't add accuracy to that package. Same for the trigger - it can't ADD accuracy, it just helps the shooter to time the shot better, reducing HIS dispersion.
There are pistol shooters using Glocks with NY ten pound triggers who've won matches, it's all about the shooter. A trigger, not as much as we'd think. Again, it just reduces shooter error, it can't reduce the natural dispersion the barrel and ammo can be documented to produce.
I'm aware of what it takes to get precision, I shot International .22 for three years in high school. Long time ago now, but the facts remain - barrel and ammo, after that, do your best to reduce shooter error. That's what stocks, jackets, slings, free floats, and triggers do. Mount that action in a sled, you reduce shooter error to a minimum, all you get is what the barrel and ammo can do.
Point being, we place too much emphasis on buying gear, when using it and being proficient would get us to a higher level of skill. It's just that being impatient and having credit cards, too many Americans just buy gear to elevate their results - rather than actually practice and gain it the hard way.
Not a bad concept for new soldiers, it's the entire point of attaching a red dot optic - it certainly enhances hit probability of the average soldier faster and cheaper than 1000's of rounds downrange. On the other hand, when it's the most difficult shots to be attempted - we train select, skilled shooters who practice putting 1000's of rounds downrange, at varying distances, in all kinds of weather, in every circumstance we can recreate, whether as a precision marksman or in CQB.
Gear cannot make up for skill and experience. Only really good shooters see benefits from high level gear -they have to be better to see results. Average shooters putting an option to reduce groups less than 1/2MOA can't get any benefit from a 2MOA gun. It still shoots 2MOA. If better ammo made it a 1MOA gun, then it was really a 1MOA gun after all. If adding a trigger made it a half MOA gun, it was - and the shooter is holding it back from being a 1/4 MOA gun.
The gun can only shoot so small, adding options to make it shoot smaller groups is usually just reducing shooter error.
There's another issue - making a 2MOA combat gun shoot under 1/2MOA. The issue is effectiveness - it doesn't need to. Sure, anyone can do that to one, but for what it was intended to do, it's out of it's design intent. It isn't part of combat requirements, and the expense on the level of an army using them isn't justified, entirely why it's a milspec standard 2MOA. That does the job in combat.
In other words, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to make it more accurate. What we do with our money is, however, our own darn business. Not many good shooters can simply accept 2MOA as good enough, because we get our egos engaged, and then, Katy bar the door, we will show everyone how much better we can shoot!
At least there is some justification to the sport, unlike, say, golf ...