# Guess the width/score



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok guys, I've been enjoying many of these threads this year and figured I would contribute another one. This is a UT buck from the early 90s (and yes, the taxidermist used was TERRIBLE!) Let's see how people do, and the winner gets some of Karl's famous 130 grain .243 bullets (as soon as he finds them).


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

27 2/8


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

28 5/8 186 Gross nets are for fish


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

23" wide 170 score


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

28 7/8


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

24 1/2"

160 ish….


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

25 3/8 width. Score of 148 and some change. Sweet buck!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

26 wide 155 inches.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

It's a nice buck. I think it would be considered a large buck in the KBGCS.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

26 3/8 wide

163 7/8 score.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

25 7/8" wide and 158"


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Nice looking buck but terrible pictures!
Those pictures are about as bad as the mount!:shock:
Makes the buck look bigger than it probably is.
Mount looks to have tiny ears.
26" wide and around mid to upper 160s


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree with Ridge on the pics...

And CPA on the score for a gross number,
Net score might be in the 140s.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

24 1/2 163 BC


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

27" wide and 172 gross.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

colorcountrygunner said:


> It's a nice buck. I think it would be considered a large buck in the KBGCS.


You stole my joke! I was all excited to bring up the KBGCS. hahaha


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

Maybe goes 27" wide with a score of 168 1/2


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Sorry for the pics, I was just snapping a few the last morning before we headed to the airport! I'll try to get some better ones next month when we're back down there!

I will admit, I am very surprised at the guesses going around on this buck. Could be the photos are so poor that people are having a difficult time putting a frame of reference on him. We just brought him back from the cabin and hadn't gotten him back on the wall yet. I'll work on that next month to see if that makes him "make more sense" for what is about to follow:

His outside spread is 29 7/8" (just never could squeeze a 30" out of him!), gross score 207 3/8" with 13" of deductions. If you look in the pic with my hand it gives you a bit of perspective on the size. My hands are not extreme on either end of the size spectrum (reign it in gents!) and just shy of 4" wide. This buck is very tall and I think that makes him tough to gauge with piss poor photos.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Missed it by an inch, I had it just over 30 then took another look at the pics and went with 28 7/8


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

johnnycake said:


> Sorry for the pics, I was just snapping a few the last morning before we headed to the airport! I'll try to get some better ones next month when we're back down there!
> 
> I will admit, I am very surprised at the guesses going around on this buck. Could be the photos are so poor that people are having a difficult time putting a frame of reference on him. We just brought him back from the cabin and hadn't gotten him back on the wall yet. I'll work on that next month to see if that makes him "make more sense" for what is about to follow:
> 
> His outside spread is 29 7/8" (just never could squeeze a 30" out of him!), gross score 207 3/8" with 13" of deductions. If you look in the pic with my hand it gives you a bit of perspective on the size. My hands are not extreme on either end of the size spectrum (reign it in gents!) and just shy of 4" wide. This buck is very tall and I think that makes him tough to gauge with piss poor photos.


Wow! That is awesome. great buck! I would be very interested in the measurements. not because I doubt you but just to see where I was wrong in my guessing I'm always trying to get better at field judging.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I'll try and dig up the score sheet from 20 years ago, but if not and I have time I'll remeasure it. A couple numbers I do remember are 23" and 21" on the g2s and the g4s are 19" and 17". Very tall buck, and it really makes his back forks look weaker than they are. I'll try and set him up next to my dad's 150ish buck(really cool old old buck btw with HUGE ears).


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm interested to see some other pics. I don't get 200+ out of that buck. 

I was WAAAAAY off!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I'm interested to see some other pics. I don't get 200+ out of that buck.
> 
> I was WAAAAAY off!


I'll be sure to get some "from a distance" pics of him plus some others with good scale references. I was really surprised at the guesses on this thread!

I am curious though what measurements you estimated to come up with a low 160's score on him?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

He is definitely tall, and that is readily apparent. But the back forks are not deep. And since you're only getting the measurement to the beam on one of those tines, not both, I felt it would really "hurt" the score. 

But what the crap do I know?


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

I don't have my paper in front of me anymore to remember all the lengths but I got 25 inside spread. 2" on g1 13 on G2s 6-7 on G3s 9 on g4's 20 on beam lengths and 25 inches of mass. I Was with vanilla thinking the fork depth and short beams hurt him. But I was basing a lot of these off his ears haha


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Johnny-

I am not very good at scoring deer but I never would have guessed 200+. And frankly, I am still not seeing that score but what do I know. -O,- Score him again and post the score sheet so that us rookies and see what we are missing. Thanks for sharing.

Hawkeye


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I will next month when I get back to Utah Hawkeye. And I'll have my wife take the photos because I know I'm am a terrible photographer! I was also thinking that people might be looking at that old chest and comparing it to a coffee table, but it is much wider than your average coffee table. Could be causing confusion. The original score was from a B&C scorer in Salt Lake county IIRC circa 1995? But we didn't bother formally entering it. I know as a teen I put the tape to it a few times with scores varying quite a bit but always over the 200" gross mark. It'll be fun to measure it again and I'll post up the sheet (plus the original if my dad can find it...somewhere in his den...or was it his safe...or....you know how it goes!)


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> I will next month when I get back to Utah Hawkeye. And I'll have my wife take the photos because I know I'm am a terrible photographer! I was also thinking that people might be looking at that old chest and comparing it to a coffee table, but it is much wider than your average coffee table. Could be causing confusion. The original score was from a B&C scorer in Salt Lake county IIRC circa 1995? But we didn't bother formally entering it. I know as a teen I put the tape to it a few times with scores varying quite a bit but always over the 200" gross mark. It'll be fun to measure it again and I'll post up the sheet (plus the original if my dad can find it...somewhere in his den...or was it his safe...or....you know how it goes!)


I was only off an inch, I used the little guys arm for reference, kind of like a small cubit Maybe it was the football pattern that threw me off


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

johnnycake said:


> I will next month when I get back to Utah Hawkeye. And I'll have my wife take the photos because I know I'm am a terrible photographer! I was also thinking that people might be looking at that old chest and comparing it to a coffee table, but it is much wider than your average coffee table. Could be causing confusion. The original score was from a B&C scorer in Salt Lake county IIRC circa 1995? But we didn't bother formally entering it. I know as a teen I put the tape to it a few times with scores varying quite a bit but always over the 200" gross mark. It'll be fun to measure it again and I'll post up the sheet (plus the original if my dad can find it...somewhere in his den...or was it his safe...or....you know how it goes!)


 Take one with a ruler laying on it. I guess I'll have mine measured if that one is 200.:O_D:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I was hoping to be able to score him last week, or find the original sheet somewhere---but I didn't really anticipate hunting until last light on the last day of elk season! I did remember, however, to snap a couple more pics of him as I was scrambling to get things taken care of at 2am yesterday before heading to the airport. Maybe this will change a few minds, maybe not, but one thing is for sure my photography skills need some work! That is my dad's first bull elk from 1996, what we affectionately joke as the world record smallest 6x6 (almost a 6x7 with a baby devil tine starting, might have been something really cool had he lived another 5-6 years).


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

27" 164


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

that's a nice buck. I couldn't give two sh its about the score.


(scoring is stupid. Especially if you can't use 1/2" and have to complicate by going 4/8").


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

I agree with PBH, score really doesn't matter. Great looking buck. Those last pictures are much better that the originals.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Sure looks like a 190"+ buck in the new pictures.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I agree that score doesn't matter. But neither does 95% of the other crap we talk about on this forum, yet we still talk about all of it. 

I also agree that the new vantage points in the pictures show how incredibly tall that buck really is. The other pictures did not show that as well.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

1/8". 7/8". 4/8".

If we really wanted to know which rack was bigger, wouldn't we measure in ounces?

I can't imagine catching a fish then measuring the length, width, breadth, and circumference, then deducting for missing, torn, or maldeveloped fins in order to come up with a score to identify how big the fish is. Instead, we measure the length to give an approximation of size, similar to measure the width of a buck. Then we place the dam fish on a scale and weigh it! KISS (keep It Simple, Stupid)

but B&C wants to KIS (Keep It Stupid) by doing a bunch of complicated measurements and not simplifying the fractions.

measuring bucks to 1/8" is about as logical as determining who wins a gymnastics competition by judging the performance. It's too subjective. Why not make it definitive?

Sorry for the rant. I still think that's a great looking buck!!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lol, I agree with many of the sentiments but I do like scores as they give you something to base your frame of reference. I just was so confused at the original guesses that I was blind from seeing him in real life for 20 years I didn't realize how pissy the first pictures were! I will get him down and score him up again someday and try to find the original sheet. He's a gorgeous deer and I was happy to share him.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

PBH said:


> 1/8". 7/8". 4/8".
> 
> If we really wanted to know which rack was bigger, wouldn't we measure in ounces?


No, use water displacement. That compensates for density differences. Dip em all in a tub of water and measure the displacement. Problem solved. :grin:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

^^My dad and I have been talking about that for years! then you really know just how much bone there is!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> No, use water displacement. That compensates for density differences. Dip em all in a tub of water and measure the displacement. Problem solved. :grin:


Sounds like a B&C answer -- complicating it again!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Sorry for the pics, I was just snapping a few the last morning before we headed to the airport! I'll try to get some better ones next month when we're back down there!
> 
> I will admit, I am very surprised at the guesses going around on this buck. Could be the photos are so poor that people are having a difficult time putting a frame of reference on him. We just brought him back from the cabin and hadn't gotten him back on the wall yet. I'll work on that next month to see if that makes him "make more sense" for what is about to follow:
> 
> His outside spread is 29 7/8" (just never could squeeze a 30" out of him!), gross score 207 3/8" with 13" of deductions. If you look in the pic with my hand it gives you a bit of perspective on the size. My hands are not extreme on either end of the size spectrum (reign it in gents!) and just shy of 4" wide. This buck is very tall and I think that makes him tough to gauge with piss poor photos.


207 3/8" - wow

Did you use one of my Goober Tape Measures on that rack?



.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> 207 3/8" - wow
> 
> Did you use one of my Goober Tape Measures on that rack?
> 
> ...


Say, ugh...you wouldn't happen to have an extra of those hanging around...I have an argument I need to settle with the wife.


----------

