You still miss the points about the 6.5x55. Neither the chambers or ammo can be standardized, because there are too many old 6.5x55's of widely varying throat dimensions still in existence, and not just old military rifles but European sporters and modern American sports. There never has been any SINGLE 6.5x55 chamber in over 125 years, so factory ammo can't be produced to produce good results (or even safe results) in every 6.5x55.
The problem with magazine length in the .260 is, of course, more easily solved. But major firearms companies have been building short-action rifles with magazines of around 2.85" for a long time now. Remington was the first in 1947 the 722, and the other companies took their lead. Once again, a LOT of rifles already exist with that length magazine, and nobody is going to go back and retrofit them all.
The problems of both 6.5x55 chambers (and sometimes weak actions) and .260 magazines (and sometimes 1-9 twists) are two factors that 6.5 Creedmoor critics can't seem to accept the war is already lost. There's no way to go back and "fix" the histories of the 6.5x55 and .260, especially when no major rifle company wants to, given their ability to sell every 6.5 Creedmoor they make.
As for popularity, I recently looked at the MidwayUSA website, and Midway is perhaps the biggest retailer of shooting stuff of any of the present Internet companies. They list 27 kinds of .260 ammo and 51 kinds of 6.5 Creedmoor.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
