“The low round count of the average hunting rifle” is exactly why American hunters have been led into the vicious cycle of thinking we need giant calibers: more gun usually equates to less trigger time (cost and recoil), less trigger time leads to less skill at shot placement, less skill at shot placement equals more marginal shots, more marginal shots equal need for calibers that can “get Er done” on bad shots.
The 65CM is an excellent choice as a do-all, and being committed to understand the ballistics involved (including bullet seeing parameters, velocity energy and sectional density, and the all too often overlooked time of flight) should all come into play. AZ has lots of lost elk every season from guys poking pencil holes through elk with magnums because they are shot way too close for where the bullet is actually designed to shine.
I’m saddened that we fall into the gear race of shooting, and forget the art of hunting.
Pick the job, then the best tool for the job.
I’m no “Johnny come lately” to the 65CM, been shooting one since ‘09. It’s just a damned good cartridge at what it does.
If barrel life isn’t part of a rifle investment equation, I’d suggest the shooter isn’t shooting enough to be making long shots under field conditions.
If primary job is large game (elk+) the job is different, so the tool should be different-but still, commitment to training and respect for the intended quarry and terrain should be present.