While "Hyper Stabilization" is definitely part of the equation (no I have not finished reading it all), at some point, just because of physics, the projectile will go trans-sonic and sub-sonic.
As I understand it, buffeting during the transition would induce bullet yaw. The long nose bullets we want for better ballistic coefficient (BC) seem to be more affected by this buffeting.
I don't think we can just "go faster with better BC and heavier for caliber" projectiles. We quickly reach diminishing returns.
Start pressures
Spin up losses
Obturation/deformation to rifling losses
Friction losses, barrel and air
My models so far show the CEB .375/425 Laser at 3550fps to be about the end of the program. Maybe there is more with some other projectile/velocity combination but it seems like that would soon run out of head room as well.
Where do we go from here?
Are we going to make a leap in advancement or continue to make small incremental advancements?
@RockyMtnMT and others have ideas of raising the sectional density (SD), I am going down this rabbit hole as well. We are using very very different approaches. I've had my physical materials for quite a while but life interferes with progress sometimes. Still, with each rise in SD there is corresponding impacts to start pressures, spin losses, etc... Though air surface friction losses will be lower and that is the lolly pop at the end of the ride.
Just an aside:
Electromagnet "Rail Guns" seem to provide some promise in the future however, they do not seem impart spin on the projectile. In order for the projectile to remain stable it must have stabilizing surfaces to counter buffeting induced yaw. These surfaces are a huge impact on the drag coefficients (CD). This in tern lowers what we call ballistic coefficient (BC). The videos I looked at have significant yaw near the muzzle.
and
Of course a rail gun is completely unobtanium for a hobby shooter...
