Serious question, because I don't know the answer: Why stick to subsonic? I know why we do it now, but what are the pitfalls of changing things up?
We currently have a wide variety of 22LR ammuntion, from very slow to quite fast. One thing that is fairly typical though through all varieties is the size/profile/material of the bullet. The subsonic "standard velocity" currently rules because that is the speed that best suites that bullet type - but, we're not talking about using the same bullet. If we're talking about switching to a new bullet that does better with higher velocities, what's stopping us from pushing them faster?
Are we worried about de-stabilization as it crosses back through to subsonic? How bad would it be?
Some readers may not be as familiar with the reasons why .22LR ammo is as referred to above. A little information on that is offered below as well as some observations regarding the feasibility of "changing things up" by using a new bullet design at velocities other than "subsonic". (Note that the term "subsonic," is often used interchangeably with "standard velocity" and I'll use the latter so as to avoid confusion with some varieties of subsonic ammo that are "extra quiet" because of their very low MV's.)
Standard velocity (SV) ammo is usually under 1100 fps, although individual rounds may be faster or slower. It remains below the speed of sound for its entire journey to the target down range. It never is supersonic and never falls into the transonic zone. The same is largely true for high velocity (HV) ammo, which is typically a few hundred feet per second faster than SV ammo. There are some hyper velocity .22LR ammos, often over 1400 fps, which do start at supersonic velocities and fall into the transonic zone as they fly down range.
Some of the difficulties experienced by bullets in the transonic zone is explained below
From h t t p s://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/09/17/extreme-long-range-tips-ballistics-time-of-flight/
The long and short of it seems to be that when it comes to accuracy it is desirable to have bullets remain above the transonic zone or to never exceed it. Since hyper velocity .22LR ammo will slow down and enter the transonic zone on its way down range, it is preferable not to use such ammo, that is ammo that has a muzzle velocity above transonic velocities but which will inevitably slow down.
Currently the most consistent and hence most accurate .22LR ammo is standard velocity match ammo, such as that made by one of the big three match ammo makers -- Eley, Lapua, or RWS. High velocity ammo that is made with the same qualities as the best SV match ammo does not exist. Furthermore, it's worth noting that SV ammo drifts less in a crosswind than HV ammo. In short, as things stand now match quality SV .22LR ammo is more accurate than any HV ammo.
******
Perhaps a new bullet design can have better results than the current lead round nose .22LR bullet. Two considerations must be kept in mind. To avoid transonic turbulence, such a bullet would have to remain above transonic velocities out to 300 yards or more in order to be effective. The alternative is that it never exceeds supersonic velocities so that it can remain within or below the transonic zone.
In any event, the nature of .22LR casings and chambers make it unlikely that new ammo with a new bullet can be made to have MV's significantly different than the current varieties of .22LR ammo. It is doubtful that any .22LR casing can produce a MV that is sufficiently high so that downrange beyond 150 or 200 yards it is still above the transonic zone. (As an aside, current .22LR bullets, whether SV or HV, retain only about 70% of the initial MV at 200 yards.) I don't know if a differently-shaped bullet like the Cutting Edge one can retain enough velocity at 200 yards to remain above transonic velocities. Perhaps a new bullet can remain above the transonic zone. I don't know, but I'm skeptical because there are very real limitations on what is possible with a .22LR casing and chamber. A new design of the casing and chamber may be necessary, but then it wouldn't be .22LR as we know it.
The second alternative referred to above is that a new ammo never exceeds supersonic velocities. Such a new ammo with a new bullet design could retain its velocity at a higher rate than current .22LR bullets, which would translate into less drop. Perhaps it could also experience less wind drift than current .22LR bullets. In any case, it is unclear whether the pointy design of the current visualization of the new magic bullet is good for standard velocity ammo.
The important thing, however, is that in order to be better than what is currently available in the form of the best match quality .22LR ammo, it must be made to the same quality standards, with the same levels of consistency in muzzle velocity. Wide extreme spreads of MV are detrimental to accuracy, especially as range increases. Such ammo would not be any more affordable than currently available top quality match ammo. If new bullets such as those planned by Cutting Edge are themselves a significant increase in cost, then any new ammo with new bullets would be even more expensive than Tenex or Midas +. Looking at the Cutting Edge website, the prices for current .224 bullets show that they start at about $36 USD for 50 -- or about $0.72 each. Of course the new .22LR Cutting Edge bullets may be much less costly.
I don't know what level of accuracy is required in ELR shooting, but it's obviously not MOA. Perhaps it's quite achievable with current .22LR ammo, depending of course on the rifle, the shooter, and the shooter's ability to understand and adapt to the conditions. Would a new magic bullet such as that proposed by Cutting Edge be significantly better than what is currently available? Perhaps. But it would certainly not be any less expensive than ammo like Tenex or Midas +. The question remains whether a new and improved ammo, which has many of the characteristics of centerfire ammo but with rimmed priming, would necessitate a newly designed chamber. But then that would no longer be .22LR.
