These arguments just don't cut it with my thinking. You see it all the time on forums. People bring up cost per round and burning out barrels as objections when making comparisons.
I say, the few cents/round difference between any "similar" rounds is just a smoke screen. Although it may be real, it is irrelevant when one adds up the real costs of reloading. It would never enter my head when I was choosing between two calibers.
The barrel life one is just as irrelevant to me. No one, except competition shooters, will ever likely shoot 4000 rounds through any rifle in his lifetime. And, the clincher for me is that only a competition shooter would notice, or care about, the slow and very slight accuracy decline as the barrel wore. I expect real "hunting accuracy" would be maintained for two or three times as many rounds as are listed as "barrel life expectancy" by those who consider that important.
If I ever manage to shoot any of my hunting guns enough to shoot out a barrel, I will consider myself lucky, and get a new barrel (or even, gasp, a whole new gun). How is that a bad thing?
To the OP. At this point in my hunting life, I have decided coyotes are one of the (pound for pound) toughest animals I hunt. I have come to believe power is important at times with coyotes, especially at distance. If I was to get a pure coyote rifle I would make it a .243 Win. or 6mm Rem if I could find one.