Sorry, but those aren't the only factors in the popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor. But like many people (especially rifle loonies who handload almost exclusively) you refuse to get it.
The 6.5 Creedmoor provides the same basic muzzle velocities as the .260 and HANDLOADED 6.5x55 ammo--but in "affordable" factory ammo, and very accurate "affordable" factory rifles.
Why in the hell would an average shooter (or even an above-average shooter) go to the trouble of buying or building some sort of 6.5x55, when throats lengths differ enormously? Handloading the 6.5x55 is a very variable pursuit, and factory ammo is also a crapshoot in both price and pressure. If you don't know this, then you haven't dealt with many 6.5x55's.
The .260 is more consistently throated, but that doesn't solve the handloading problems, even with many standard hunting bullets. In my present .260, a factory rifle known for fine accuracy, even Nosler AccuBonds (not Long Range Accubonds) and Hornady SST's can't be seated out long enough for consistent accuracy. Which is why I eventually felt compelled to modify the magazine to take 2.95" rounds.
The Creedmoor solves all those problems, with "affordable" factory rifles and ammo. If you don't get that, then you obviously don't have a grasp on the reality of modern rifle and ammo manufacturing.
But that isn't untypical of those who assume every hunter is a handloader, or even owns only custom rifles.
Ok I'll reply point by point.
I don't refuse to "get" it. I don't see anything to get, and I surly do not refuse.
However I will say you are largely correct. I do usually assume most rifle loonie will load their own. Maybe that's not true on a national scale. But every single man and woman I know that owns a 6.5 CM (or a 6.5 Swede for that matter) does reload. Maybe that because of where I live and who lives here too. So I have to admit John is probably right on that point. Guilty Guilty Guilty!
To address the point of throat length, it don't think that counts. Swede rifles have not been made by the Swedish military in a very long time. The only 6.5X55s I have seen with problematic throats were some old military barrels and some of the Howas. But that's not a good argument for selling a shell. I am all for leveling criticisms at various rifles and their makers when they do something wrong, and I have done that many times. But that has nothing to do with cartridge design or even bolt action design for that matter. I am on record as praising the 6.5 CM, but I just cannot be convinced it's anything revolutionary or even improved. I believe the best 6.5MM shell ever made for a balance of "goods" with not"bads" is the 6.5 Swede and any shell that equals or comes within 2%-3% of the Swede is going to have my respect. So I am certainly NOT in the anti 6.5CM camp. FAr from it. But when you hear and hear and hear all about how new and improved it is and you have been building guns that do the exact same thing for over 40 years it just gets to be a bit much. The CM has it's strong suit in what magazines it will fit. That it and that all. It does everything piratically the Swede will do and that is high praise, but it's not "new". Chambering a gun in the CM when you could chamber it in the 260 or the 6.5X55(and have it feed with any bullet) is NOT a step forward. It's not a meaningful step backward either in a practical scene. It's just the same thing ballisticly we have had for many years. That's the only point I was making. If I were to make myself a 6.5MM rifle I would choose one of these 3 shells, depending on what action I was going to use. There is no real difference in the performance of any of them.
So when you say not everyone has a custom rifle I agree. You make a point there that I would not defend. But I can't help wonder why the rifle factories are not simply chambering the 260 or the 6.5X55 and making small changes where needed to feed the older shells with the longest bullets. I see the M1A and the AR10 type guns being pushed in the CM. That's exactly the way I think it should be done. Same with the Ruger Precission rifle and others that take the mil-spec mags. But doing that on any rifle that would easily take the Mauser shell is a perfect answer to problem that have never existed. Nothing wrong with it at all. But there is nothing "more right with doing that either, and yet we read and read and read over and over and over how the CM is new and improved. Even the US Army saw the wisdom is used the long 700 action so they could load longer bullet in their M21s. It's not a big step in logic to do the same with a 260 Remington. Heck it would be a very minor change in manufacturing to make sheet metal mag boxes .100" longer that mill out the rear of the mag well so they fit. Instantly you have a 260 that can be loaded with the very longest bullet made, and it work fine. You can't do it on every action because some have a screw in the way, but that's not a big deal to change over at the factory. So my mental questions are based on not the "what's" but the "whys".
Ok ..... Ammo.... I can't see any more 6.5CM ammo on the shelves at Rocky Mountain Sports, Sportsman's' Warehouse or Wal Mart in any town I have been to in Wyoming than I see 260 Remington ammo. So I don't think there is an answer to a problem there either. and when I look at the prices of the ammo it's the same as the 6.5CM usually with 1 dollar. Maybe that's not the same in other places, so I would not be dogmatic about that, but I would have to ask other shooters if they see the same thing.
And "affordable rifle"? There is NO difference in a rifle made by any company from one caliber to the next when we look at the 243, 260 6.5CM 7-08 or 308. None at all! So I may be wrong about the counter point of the ammo being priced the same (as I said, I'll just have to ask other shooters in other places) but I am 100% right about the rifle pricing. It even goes for custom rifles. I build a CM for the exact same price I would build a 308, 243 260 or anything else that works on the action. So please explain to me what I "obviously do not understand." A Ruger RPR or a Tikka or a Remington or a Savage in 308 S 6.,5 CM all cost the same. I see ammo in 260 and 6.5 that cost the same too. (so far)
Ease of loading? Here I would have to disagree with you John. I have made many dozens of Swedes and worked on loads for many others with military barrels. I have made 2 for myself and I owned on Winchester M70 in the 6.5 swede at one time. I have not had any more problem loading ammo for them than any other shell. Not ever. And I have been working on guns and ammo for 50 years now. Sure there have been some old guns that didn't shoot well, but those had barrels that were not in the best of shape. I think I am safe to say a lot of 6.5 CMs will have some accuracy problems in 80-100 years too. Again that has absolutely ZERO to do with cartridge design.
Coming back to my point: if the factories would have standardized the Swede as they have the CM, all such "problems" (real or imagined) vanish. So why is it best to invent a new shape of shell instead of just setting standards for the old one, and then saying the new one is "better" when it's really not? Again I will say it now loud and clear...it's not worse either, but it's not the miracle we are being told it is.
I'd be equally happy with any one of the 3. I'd be happiest with the 6.5X55 in a classic bolt action, and I'd be happiest with the CM if I had a NATO length mag, but the deer elk and antelope would never know of care which one I had.
