If you somehow found something hostile in my previous post, then I'm sorry that a "war of language" is what you do for a living, as your reading comprehension is below par.

When you start from scratch with a completely new DR cartridge in today's world, you start with zero rifles in the pool, and it's commercial viability must then be supported exclusively by the new rifles being built for it. If a new double rifle cartridge is a big hit and sells really well, we're talking about a couple dozen new guns per year, not a couple thousand. Even if it was a couple thousand, without the direct support of the gunmaker (the willingness to supply factory ammo and components themselves), the cartridge would be a commerical failure - there just isn't enough volume to support the manufacturing costs. If the gunmakers choose instead to use an existing cartridge, even one that hasn't been chambered in new rifles for many years, at least there is an existing pool of rifles already in circulation creating a demand for the ammunition and components - and that means that the gunmaker's customer is more likely to be able to feed his large investment over a much longer term. That's why duplicating the ballistics of a DR cartridge that's been around for many years with a completely new cartridge is such a bad mistake. Doing so only negates the advantage of volume and greatly reduces the likelihood of commercial viability.