Kinda depends on how you sort your priorities?
Smallest "almost large frame" revolvers would be an L-frame S&W, 696 (all stainless) or 396 (al/ti). Their size (both) and/or weight (396) makes them more carryable, and more easily kept out of sight if/when that is an issue. Five rounds, not six, and .44 Special, not Mag.
S&W has a .44 Mag scandium/titanium "Mountain Lite" if you really want to keep the weight down, but speaking from experience with the .38 Spec +P Airlites, you
will pay a price for that if you use full-house loads. It's not just a comfort issue, either; I think most of us would find our recovery times slowed a good bit with a 26 ounce 329 and full-house loads, and that might be an issue for you.
So, the two ti-cylinder guns are definitely in the category of "carry much, shoot little." That may or may not suit you. The 696, which has gotten a little hard to find since it was discontinued early this year, would be easier to shoot, but I think it weighed about 39 ounces so it wasn't exactly a flyweight, just more compact.
What caliber do you need or want? You don't need a .44 Mag (or anything bigger) for defense against two-legged threats. There are several .44 Spec loads with the 200 gr Gold Dot that are more than suited for that. For the "woods" angle, are you thinking utility? Or are you thinking animal defense, and if so, what animals? Bobcats? Bears? For bears, even a .44 Mag is probably only just adequate; if that's a realistic risk, go bigger. (And, though you said large bore, if you don't need to address a bear risk, you could probably be well served by a .357 Mag -- but that's a different question than the one you asked.)
If you feel that you need more than a .44 Spec, or if something bigger is just attractive because of its flexibility, and you don't want to get into hand cannons and wheel kits
, there's .44 Mag and .45 Colt. Unless you want to shoot really heavy bullets (over 300 gr), the choice probably doesn't matter...maybe go with the .44 Mag because it's one of those calibers for which ammo and components are available almost anywhere.
S&W, Ruger, Dan Wesson and lots of others offer lots of choices, new and used. The S&W Mountain Guns offer a lot of flexibility in a relatively compact (4") and lighter platform. They are probably in the "carry more, shoot less" category, depending a lot on what you feed them. I have a MG in .44 Mag and love it. One of these might be the perfect choice for you, but that's a personal evaluation.
Beyond that point, you're really into choosing between (1) traditional full-size, full-weight large frames that offer more control and possibly more strength at the price of greater weight and (2) the real hand cannons in .454, .480 and .500 that are even bigger and heavier -- IMO well out of the "general utility" category. Just how much extra weight and size you would have to put up with would depend on how much powder and how big a bullet you need or want to shoot. You rapidly lose concealability, though, if that is a factor. Concealing an N-frame or equivalent is possible but not easy. After that, good luck...the .454, .480 and .500s all offer more, but in my opinion you'd need to have a specific reason to go that big. You may need one of them, but it's hard to tell without more background.
On the trigger guard point, the Colt Anaconda (which fits into the full-size, full-weight category) has a TG that's somewhat larger than most.
Take a look at the Mountain Guns -- they might be perfect. There are also a variety of 3" N- and L-frame S&Ws out there commissioned by Lew Horton and other distributors that would generally strike the same balance on the weight-size-power compromise.
