I think this line of thinking is flawed and misses the point and advances made by the CM family and similar cartridges.
It’s the the chamber throat and twist that makes the CM family step up and outshine earlier rounds. The short action and low recoil are nice benefits as well but they are secondary.
The 22CM is the most glaring example of this point. On surface it’s essentially a 22-250 AI, but the fast twist and extended throat allow use of 90gr .22cal bullets providing great BC’s very high SD’s that allow it to out punch traditional 243’s etc.
If Winchester would have had the foresight to design the WSM family around similar characteristics it would have been a truly revolutionary group of chamberings.
The new heavy and long for caliber bullets coming out for 22, 6mm, 25, 6.5 are all direct result of the CM introduction and all allow far better down range ballistic advantages than previously possible. The benefits to target and hunting shooters are impressive.
Ok, I’ll bite… ‘Cause I wanna make people think, not just spill out the typical rhetoric on/about the CM (or PRC/BC/Western for that matter) series of Cals.
So the question is…. “why did they stop at just the 6.5CM?”
To date all of the CM stuff is of 6.5mm down to smaller 22 Cals. Do those gains so richly flaunted, quoted and marketed as such get negated once over 6.5mm? Or has the PRC/BC and Westerns taken on those realms above 6.5mm with the CM now being left behind?
We really don’t know cause it hasn’t been done by Hornady to this point. It would seem that they have decided to focus on the smaller stuff thus far for some reason.
And really why? You already have the aforementioned PRC/BC/Westerns taking that on and probably nothing an added CM’d variant of the same couldn’t newly offer… ie; 27CM Vs 27NOS Vs 270WSM Vs 270Wby. Add in a slew AI variants avail for other various Cals and we really start to have an array of choices that start to overlap don’t we?
Again to my orig post.. you can only reinvent the wheel so many times, the fact remains its still round..
Look, I’m usually all for some new stuff, but with advances in Powder, Projectiles, Reloading Data, Annealing etc etc etc over the last decade or so, reality is, some of the old standby’s still get the job done and done effectively. Far beyond what was expected of them when first introduced. They maybe a hair slower, but still done none-the-less. It kinda makes you sit back and think “Is it all worth that smidgen extra and is it worth jumping on this bandwagon?”
For those that do dabble in the following below (tongue in cheek here ie; sarcasm folks). Have at ‘er, i don’t begrudge someone for their Cal of choice.
- Needmore (CM)
- Wasting some Money (WSM)
- Wasting Substantial Sums of Money (WSSM)
- Wasting BIG Money (WbyMag)
- Nothing otherworldly Substantial (NOS)
- Pretty Redundant Cals (PRC)
Hey, I’m just as guilty for going down the WSM and WbyMag roads myself tbh, but as someone mentioned a few posts above mine. Nothing really new.
Ya, you gain some FPS, lose some trajectory as well from a new design/platform but basically you are just splitting hairs over some of the already proven and potent existing Cals that have long track records behind them.
Like I said, I’m just trying to get people to think about all these choices we now have avail rather then be quick to spill out the usual rhetoric some marketing dweeb threw out there about speed/flatness and that some have taken as now divine gospel….
Sorry to the OP for the derail
yea for sure the 6 CM 
They still have never offered up the 280 AI. 
lol
