If I was going to buy a new a rifle for dealing with big critters that could kill me, my choice would be the Ruger Alaskan. I would change the stock, however. The Hogue overmolded stocks on the Ruger Alaskan just don't fit me. My preference would be a laminated stock with the length of pull, including a really good recoil pad, shortened to no more than 13 inches. I used to have a stainless Model 70 in .375 H&H, but I had to sell it. The barrel on it was fairly heavy and 24 inches long. It had too much weight forward for me to use with my bum left elbow. I shot a friends Ruger Alaskan and its shorter barrel worked fine for me. Another thing is that, out of the box, the Ruger Alaskan feeds far more reliably. The problem with the post-94 Model 70 is although they went back to the pre-64 Mauser style extractor and solid ejector, they didn't go back to the pre-64 magazine. The pre-64 magazines were taylored to the cartridge. In the post-64 guns (including the post-94 Model 70s) they took the "one size fits nothing" approach. With a tapered cartridge like the .375 H&H in the unaltered post-64 magazines, the last cartridge in the magazine box wants to roll out from under the feed rail when you work the bolt hard after firing the second to the last round. It is then a crap shoot if that round is going to end up in a position to tie up the gun, or feed into the action. After dealing with over 100 U.S. Forest Service Model 70s in Alaska, I learned how to alter the magazine so it won't do that, but the unaltered guns could get you killed. I tried to explain the problem to Winchester, but they refused to admit there is a problem because to do so would probably get them sued by the family of someone who got nailed by a big cirtter when the gun jammed.
I would really like to try a Blaser R8, but it is eight times as hard for me to come up with the $3,000 to $4,000 for an R8 than the about $1,000 for a Ruger Alaskan, and every time I try to come up with several guns I could sell to get an R8, I just can't do it.