Based on some experience, I sincerely doubt Sierra is ignoring the "non-toxic" trend--but monolithic bullets are not the only answer there. They also started making plastic-tipped target bullets.
In my experience their assessment of the "long-range hunting" trend is spot on. There are two kinds of long range hunters: More ordinary hunters who want to extend their sure range to 500-600 yards, while not giving up close-in performance, and "real" long-range hunters who wouldn't dream of shooting at any animal under 500-600 yards away. The first type is already served by a bunch of different bullets, whether Barnes LRX's, Nosler AccuBonds (long range or otherwise), Swift Scirocco II's, or whatever. The second isn't worried about up-close performance.
The other fact is that "shooting" (meaning targets and other kinds of competition, general range-plinking, and varmints) is increasing far faster than big game hunting these days, despite the zillions of whitetails and feral pigs being killed each year--which do NOT require premium bullets.
Plus, aside from their huge government and target market, Sierra sells a lot of bullets overseas, and even these days relatively few foreign countries require non-toxic big game bullets. Those that do aren't huge markets.
It's a mistake to assume that Sierra ignoring the "premium" big game market is eating into their growth or profits. And again, why would they use a bunch of time, energy and money entering a market that's already flooded by not only major companies but many smaller companies?
