This is nonsense, and the source you linked does not support or even mention anything about what you've claimed about trajectories. Did you just hope no one would actually read it? It does, however, talk about the sustainability problems with maintaining the railgun as well as the benefit of simply using the projetile developed for the railgun in conventional guns. From your source:
As the Navy was developing EMRG, it realized that the guided projectile being developed for
EMRG, which weighs about 23 pounds, could also be fired from 5-inch and 155mm powder
guns. When fired from EMRG, the projectile reaches hypervelocity (i.e., Mach 5+) speeds, and
thus came to be known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP). When fired from a power gun, the
projectile flies quickly, but not as quickly as it does when fired from EMRG.
“We thought rail guns were something we were really going to go after, but it turns out that
powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you
would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster,”
[then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert] Work said.
The trajectory of any projectile, including the shot of a railgun, follows an elliptic ballistic curve.

There's no such thing as a dead spot in the range. You just aim up.
