My rule on rifles (and good shotguns), is to never allow their acquisition to interfere with the ability to make a hunt. I think a bespoke Holland & Holland Royal would be a fabulous thing to own, but a $120K price tag would affect my ability to actually hunt. But understand there are folks who would never consider dusting partridge without a matched pair of them. If necessary, I can have wonderful hunting experiences with a Savage or Mossberg of appropriate caliber or gauge. Those experiences are more important (to me) than owning best quality arms. I have been blessed to do a bit of both, but if I am struggling with the cost of a new rifle, then I have no problem walking away to invest in the next adventure. That is a long way around to say that if you can afford the tariff for a new Mauser and a couple of sets of barrels, then I think you will find them exceptional, but probably not "exceptionally" better than a Kimber Caprivi, which would not be "exceptionally" better than a Remington. I just acquired my first Blaser R8 with .375 and .300 WM barrels and am stunned by their accuracy and ease of use. (The repeatability of that accuracy following take-down, is one of the major things you are investing in with either the Blaser or new Mauser system.) But truth in lending, my Blaser is not "exceptionally" better than my Mauser '98 based .375. My next meaningful rifle purchase (who knows - maybe my last) will be a Rigby Highlander when they are released this spring (in .275). It won't do anything one of my other 7mms won't do, but it is a Rigby.
So, you can have very satisfying hunts with the Savage, the Mauser, the Blaser or a host of other weapons at varying price points. It is simply a function of what gives you the most affordable pleasure in making that hunt. So, they are all "worth it" and "not worth it." Simply a function of cost and desire.