No, but my point is that actual innovation was a rocket from the 1850's to 1950's, and since then, all we've done is spend $Billions to squeeze single digit% performance out of the stuff that is older than any of us. I get caught up in this stuff just like anyone else, and then sometimes when I compare downrange m.v. and energy of the thousands of cartridges available to us, I acknowledge how much mental masturbation it all is. When almost every modern cartridge is pushing 1,500+ fps at 500y+, and 90%+ of animals are taken inside of 100y, where you could have killed them with a decent crossbow, it can all be much ado about nothing. There is no way to quantify or prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that frontal diameter is almost never the factor as to whether or not a game animal dies, (accepting huge swings, like, don't shoot an elephant with a .223). If you were able to put a fatal shot into the vitals of a deer with your 7rm, for example, and you were magically able to repeat the same shot under the same conditions with a 6.5cm, or a 243, or a 300wm, or just about anything in these middle of the road calibers, the result would be the same. You could shoot an animal with this 6.8 western, or a 6.5 prc, or a century plus old .270, and nothing will change at all. Now, I'm guilty of buying every new thing that comes out just like many of you, but I am honest about the lack of real difference. Now excuse me while I go back to building my 6mm arc ar, because I definitely needed a 3rd 6mm cartridge that performs worse than the .243 and .240 Weatherby I already own, but fits in an ar, and when compared to the 6.5 grendel ar I already own, it ummm, does something better, maybe.