Re: Criterion .308 barrel
I think you're following a well worn path, starting with the .308 and finding temptation toward the .260. IMHO the .308 is attractive to newer shooters for exactly the reasons you chose it, and eventually provides incentive towerd a less marginal chambering. There will be bullets that seem more productive than the 175's but the chambering's limited case capacity doesn't really permit driving them at their more effective velocities. The .300 can help, but does so by expending more energy, when a better answer is a more efficient bullet; hence the popularity of the .260.
Some will suggest the .260 also has restrictive energy limits, and I could agree, but the next logical step, the 6.5-284, IMHO goes as far too far as the .260 is to little.
I'm currently looking at the .280 Rem as a more properly effective/efficient upgrade from the .260. The more common 1:9" twist will handle bullets up to 168gr and that's plenty for the chambering, and I would employ as much barrel length as possible (28" even?), to get the most out of the additional case capacity. I'm still in the initial phases of load development using a 24" 1:9" barrel, and have reached 150gr bullet weights, having also tried 120 and 140 weights (all Nosler Ballistic Tips). H-4350 and H-4831SC appear to be ideal propellents. It this stage, the 150's appear capable of arriving supersonic at 1Kyd, and do not appear to generate as much subjectively noticed recoil as the 175's in a .308. Also, the .280 is LOUD (with 150gr handloads and 150gr Rem Core-Lokd Hunting loads) out of a 22" and 24" barrel! This indicates to me a higher than ideal muzzle pressure, and could support the case for a longer barrel.
Greg