OpticNerd

I don't know about everyone else but I've never been completely satisfied with our current scoring methods. There are two reasons why I don't fully agree with these methods one reasons is spread. Don't get me wrong I love the look of a nice wide buck but I like a very tall buck just as much or even better. A tall buck can be just as impressive as a wide buck especially from the side but yet when it comes to score these impressive looking tall boys don't get any credit for growing their rack upwards like the wide boys do when growing their rack outward. In my opinion anytime you can have two bucks with the exact same bone mass and tine length score differently just because one grew outward instead of upward then something just isn't quite right with that method of scoring. The other reason I won't ever be able to fully agree the our current antler scoring systems is tine mass has no effect on score. A good example of this is the Titus bull that Candice Hogan shot. If you haven't seen this bull yet do yourself a favor and Google it. The bull has absolutely insane tine mass but under the current scoring systems this incredible tine mass has no effect on score what so ever. Are you kidding me! All that extra bone the bull grew with nothing to show for it score wise but yet he got 30-40 inches for air. It just doesn't sit well with me that this bull didn't get any score for his impressive tine mass. So after testing out numerous different methods I think I found a method that easily fixes these issues I have and I feel that this new method is an improvement over the scoring systems currently being used for elk and deer. Here's how you do it. Score your buck or bull as you normally would but leave out the spread measurement. If you already know the score whether it be B&C, P&Y or SCI just subtract the width measurement from that score. Next measure the smallest circumference located between the base and the mid-point of the tine for all typical points. Lets say your buck has a 10 inch G2 for example. Well we all know half of 10 is 5 so you would measure 5 inches down from the tip of the G2 and this will give you the location of the g2's midpoint. You would then find the smallest circumference located between the midpoint and the base of the G2. This measurement will be the tine mass measurement for the G2. Repeat this process on all the typical points and add them up to get your total tine mass score. A typical 6x6 bull will have 5 tine mass measurements per side, a typical 4x4 muley with eye guards will have 4 tine mass measurement per side and a typical 3x3 coues will have 3 tine mass measurements per side. Once you get your total tine mass score you just simply add it to your previous score minus the spread measurement and your done. It's quite simple really. I don't have very many racks to measure but from the few I've measured there really hasn't been that much difference between the two scores. The racks I've scored using this new method have been a 101 7/8 B&C 3x3 coues that scored 98 4/8 using this new method. A 74 4/8 B&C 3x3 coues that scored 72 6/8 using the new method. A 130 B&C 3x4 muley that scored 129 new method. A 132 7/8 B&C 3x3 muley that scored 126 with the new method. Lastly a 6x6 305 bull that scored 307 1/8 using the new method. Like I mentioned earlier I haven't found much difference between the two methods so far but to be fair I have yet to score a really wide or a really heavy tined rack. This is where I feel the biggest difference will be seen using this new method. I was hoping some of you guys would be willing to take the time and measure some of your current bucks or bulls using this new method and post your results and/or opinions. Especially if you happen to have some really wide or heavy tined racks. I also think this new method will work better for accurately scoring sheds because you don't have to make a guesstimate on the spread. So what do you guys think?

Looks like the people have spoken and given the responses I'd say there is little to no interest in this purposed tine mass method. Oddly enough I think there was more talk on the water displacement method than the method this thread was intended for.

Congrats to your wife on some stud bucks and congrats to you on a stud wife! The mass on that shed is crazy good luck finding him this year.

Just so there's no confusion I'm not suggesting a change in the current scoring systems. This new proposed system is nothing more than another way to score your antlers. If your not a fan of air measurements than why use them? Sure if you happen to shoot a record book animal and you want to enter it into the books then B&C is the way to go. But if your a guy like me that doesn't really care about the record books and your looking for a more complete way to measure just the antlers with no air measurements then this new method might be a better system for you.

I don't recall ever being this interested in seeing how the bucks n bulls racks are going to turn out especially if we get lucky with a storm or two in June and I don't even got an elk tag. Hopefully I can get lucky and pull a strip tag this year.

Title says it all. Crazy good shedding Sneaker! Very cool that the kids got to experience this day with their dad. Might want to take those two little lucky charms out with you come hunting season.

Interesting info about the original SCI scoring system Mr. Quimby. I searched the web but couldn't find and info about the SCI's old way of scoring. Mainly looked for a scoring sheet but no luck. So back in the days of their original scoring system did SCI take a circumference measurement of each individual point?

Becker, I certainly agree that wide bucks are sure awesome to look at as long as the buck is looking directly at you or away from you. Some of the widest bucks I've seen looked nice and big until they turn their head. Same goes for the very tall narrow bucks they can look huge at certain angles and then as soon as they look directly at you they shrink on ya. I still think the width of a buck or bull should fall under personal preference and not into the score of the rack. As far as moose goes I don't know anything about scoring moose. Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Mr. Blaze and here's why. Let say you have two bucks both of which score 120 inches. Buck #1 has 20 inch main beams, 30 inches of mass and is 20 inches wide. Buck #2 also has 20 inch main beams, 30 inches of mass but is only 10 inches wide instead of 20. So that would give Buck #1 30 inches of tine length to reach a total of 120 while Buck #2 will have 40 inches of tine length to achieve a score of 120 inches giving Buck #2 10 more inches of bone over buck #1. Imagine if you will your hiking up through a saddle when out of the corner of your eye you spot bone sticking up out of the grass. Your hearts racing as you run up to see what you've found. As you get closer you can see that it's a matching set and it just happens to be the antlers from Buck #1. As claim your prize you immediately start running the numbers in your head. 20" beams, 5" G1s, 5" G2s, 5" G3s and 30 inches of mass. Heck yea that's a sweet buck bro! But your days not done yet because as soon as you look up there is another set only 10 yards away and as luck would have it this set belongs to Buck#2. As you pick up the sheds you notice they feel just a bit heavier than the set from Buck #1. Once again your heart racing as you go through the numbers in your head. To your surprise all the measurements are coming up the same; 20" beams, 30" of mass, 5" G3s, 5" G2s...., but what's this! As you come to the G1s you about soil your draws because staring you in the face are two of the damnedest looking 10" eye guards you've ever seen. After 5 minutes of admiring both sets on the ground next to each other you pick up one antler from Buck #1 and then an antler from Buck #2. You hold them up side by side and with it's 10" eye guard buck #2 definitely appears to be the bigger of the two bucks. You also confirm that buck #2 is just a bit heavier than Buck #1 due to the extra bone in the 10" G1. So as you can see there actually can be a difference other than personality between a tall buck and a wide buck that score the same.

I've also given the water displacement idea some thought but just couldn't get use to it. I like to be able to score my animals in the field and I don't see how that would be possible with the water displacement scoring. Good questions. Yes you are correct in saying that my new method isn't really any different than the old method. It was designed to be as such and when you think about it being similar is an advantage really. This will make it much easier for hunters to transition over to this new method. Especially when it comes to field judging animals. The main difference is that a rack will get credit for antler only and not air. For me I'm not interested in scoring for the record books. Never have never will. I mainly score for fun and to compare my kills. I'll have to somewhat disagree with you on getting credit for height while using our current scoring systems. I was having a hard time explaining why this is so I drew a picture. Keep in mind I'm no artist so please excuse my drawing but it should give you a general idea as to why I don't like spread being included in the score of an animals rack and to why I feel height isn't given credit with the current system. For the sake of argument lets say the two bucks in the picture below are exactly the same other than width and height. All the points are the same. All the mass measurement are the same. Everything is the same except width and height. But under our current scoring system the wider buck will score more even though both bucks have the same amount of bone. The reason why I don't agree with the idea that a tall buck will get credit for growing a tall rack because he'll get inches from his long tines is because in the bad drawing below both bucks get the same amount of score for the length of their tines. No where in the score does the tall buck get more inches then the wide buck for growing his rack tall. I feel a lot of tall bucks are tall due to the way the main beam/frame grows and not because of very long tines. This is why I don't think spread should be included in score. In my mind the only thing that should be scored is bone. As some have mentioned earlier I also miss the good ol days when you ask someone what they shot and they'd say a 4x4 or 3x3 but I think it's more the overall attitude of the hunters in general I miss rather then if a guy said he shot a 100 incher instead of just saying he shot a 3x3. It was far less competitive back then or at least it seemed that way.

Thanks Edge and murfy.

Here's a video I was able to put together from this years rut. Hope you guys enjoy it! EDIT: I added a bunch of stills pulled from the video.

130 2/8

Thanks guys...Pixman I don't download videos directly to CW.com I copy the youtube url from a video I want to share and then paste it into my post. I'm pretty sure there is a size limit on videos directly downloaded to this site more than likely that limit is going to be fairly small. Might want to check with Amanda to be sure though.

Thanks Randy. It's always good to get comments so I at least know some of you still enjoy watching these videos.

Loved it! Really enjoy watching your videos. Thanks for taking the time to post them up and keep um coming.

Out of the cameras I've used I really like the Canon Elph 300 HS when it comes to videoscoping especially for the price. Majority of the footage from my 2013 rut video was recorded with this camera. Another camera I like are the Sony RX100 series. I've been using a RX100 for almost a year now and I'm really starting to like it. Pretty much all the footage from my 2015 rut video is RX100 footage with the exception of two or three clips. Good luck hope your able to get the results your looking for.

Thanks for the comment Dominant Buck. Without knowing more about your digiscoping setup I really can't give you any specific pointers. I'm far from being a digiscoping expert but for me one of the most important factor in getting quality footage is distance. To get the good stuff I need to be within 300 yards. The closer the better. Doing this should improve the quality of your footage. Another general tip is to upgrade your equipment if at all possible. Get an ED scope if you don't have one. Doesn't necessarily need to be top of the line just as long as it has some type of ED glass. This will help a lot with the color fringing. Also get a compact HD camera that has a zoom below 5x if you don't already have one. From my experience I get the results with cameras that have an optical zoom range between 3-5x. Any other questions feel free to ask.

Can someone please tell where the dislike button is?

Sorry man but your asking the wrong guy when it comes to accurately scoring a buck on the hoof. The 110-120 is just a quick guesstimate and this guess is based on if he wasn't broken. I never got video of him fully intact. I'm pretty sure he's closer to 110 than 120 but who knows for sure. I have a hard time seeing him scoring under 105 but I could be wrong. Maybe someone else will chime in with a more accurate number than I can give. Sorry I couldn't be anymore helpful.

Thanks! Yes he is/was a 5x4 not including eye guards of course. I'm not the best at scoring but I think with all his points intact he would go somewhere between 110-120. Thanks! Yea that buck is one of the most aggressive bucks I've seen in a while. I don't think I've ever seen a buck charge as many bucks as this guy and it wasn't just the bucks he was also mean to the all the does as well.

Wow you guys did good! Definitely have hunting pigs figured out. Congrats thanks for sharing.

Sweet wall! I really like your velvet buck especially his right side. To me that side screams coues. I love antlers that look like that. Congrats!

Thanks Shawn. This might be the last one for awhile because I'm really starting to miss bow hunting in January.

It's official you and Jody are a couple of big buck killin mamajamas! Congrats to you both!

Dang! That coues is crazy big! Congrats man!