I think you guys are also missing an item that we've all overlooked as to why the 6.5 CM has been more successful than the .260. The Internet. Think about the amount of information available over the Internet today compared to 20 years ago when the .260 was introduced? Anyone that is looking for a new rifle today has information at their fingertips. Marketing therefore has had a profound effect through the 'net.
I still like my .260 and will continue to use it. If I was started out today, I would go the 6.5 CM. Why? The ability to buy factory 6.5 ammo when .260 cannot be found. I reload for the .260 but like the safety net of having availability.
Good point.
Back in the day, it was what the gun writers had to say, what was in the gun mags for us to read.
Today, in this digital age there's a plethora of info, much of which sorta feeds on itself with growing intensity until it's woven into the culture, some of which may be urban myth more than fact.
Not too different from the current political scene with lots of "fake news", and propaganda mixed in with real news until it's hard to discern what's what as public opinion is being "shaped".
Hopefully our shooting world isn't as screwed up as the political scene, but some of those principles do apply, IMO.
And, everyone has to protect his "turf" regarding guns, rounds, loads, etc...
Otherwise, there wouldn't be much to discuss here on the Fire...
DF
I think that being passionate about an inanimate object, be it a cartridge, a firearm, an automobile, or anything else is a waste of energy. If you like something and someone else likes something different, why do you care? I do what I want to do and don't care what others do as long as what they do doesn't have a negative impact on me and what they shoot or drive surely doesn't. I currently have 49 firearms that are chambered for 6 different 6.5mm bore cartridges. They are totally redundant, plowing the same ground as John put it, but I don't care, as each one has its own character and in some way has given me pleasure.
I actually have been influenced by gun writers when I was younger. I was positively influenced by the late great Skeeter Skelton with regard to the S&W Model 27 and the .44 Special. I was positively influenced by the late great Jack O'Connor with regard to the 257 Roberts and 7x57. I was positively influenced by the late Larry Kollar with regard to the Savage 1920 and .250-3000. I was negatively influenced by a well known writer who is still active, as I felt that he had a tendency to write about things that he hadn't researched very well, not often, but often enough, and by doing so he put incorrect information into the public domain that many people will take at face value and perpetuate the spread of erroneous information because it was written by a "name" gun writer. I felt strongly enough to write to him once and I received a nice letter in return that when distilled down amounted to "Who cares what the public thinks." and "Only a hand full of collectors will ever recognize the points that you've raised and they will ignore what I've written, so should you.". Now I ignore his work and have never felt the loss.
The internet is a great tool, but there is probably as much wrong information to be found on it as there is correct information, the challenge is to sort truth from the rest.
While I've declared myself to be a 260 fan via my handle here and my email address, I'm not going to attempt to influence anyone by arguing its merits or defending its faults, 'cause I don't care what other people do. My favorite long action 6.5mm bore cartridge is the 256 Newton, but it is a PITA to make cases for, so why would anyone want to start down that road when easier options abound? Today, the 6.5 Creedmoor is indisputably superior to the 260 in two areas, better factory ammo and the shorter case design allows for the use of longer, high BC VLD bullets in a short action. If you loaded both cartridges with typical hunting bullets in the 85 to 130 grain range, I doubt that there is any meaningful difference between the two, assuming that all other variable factors are equal. O'Connor wrote about such things nearly 50 years ago and what he wrote then would be equally accurate today just by changing the names of the objects being discussed. Or so it seems to me.
