jakehaffey Report post Posted October 7, 2009 Hey all, I have always wondered why any horned animal is scored the way they are. I saw a video a while back and this guy had a new scoring system that awarded more points for heavier bucks. He had an example of a buck that was really long but very skinny that outscored a buck that was shorter but way heavier. He gave points for diameter at the base of every tine. At least that's what I remember him doing. Anyways I was wondering what everyone thought if you were to create a box of some sort that officially measured any antlered animal by total volume of the antlers? If this box was created to give the exact volume you would get points on the actual size and not just for lengths and some mass. If you took the total volume and added the width then it seems to me scores would justify what animal truly is the biggest. I know it may seem a little far fetched of an idea but I do believe it is a doable idea. I have had this idea for a while and thought I would ask other hunters what they thought/ So if anyone has an input on the topic I would like to hear about it? Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted October 7, 2009 the easist way to measure volume of an object is to submerse it in water and measure the amount of water it displaces. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngbuck Report post Posted October 7, 2009 the easist way to measure volume of an object is to submerse it in water and measure the amount of water it displaces. +1, Bill had some insight on this subject. I believe he said this was more common over seas. I would love to see some displacement measurements on current records just to see how they would stack up against eachother. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n777ea Report post Posted October 7, 2009 Right on! I have asked this same question to much more advanced hunters than I and they seem to agree. Mass is not given near enough credit in the current scoring system. I mentioned a volume test like water, too. I think we need some serious changes to the scoring system. Any thing in the line of volume would be an improvement to give mass more credit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted October 7, 2009 Right on! I have asked this same question to much more advanced hunters than I and they seem to agree. Mass is not given near enough credit in the current scoring system. I mentioned a volume test like water, too. I think we need some serious changes to the scoring system. Any thing in the line of volume would be an improvement to give mass more credit. The system used by the CIC of Europe measures deer antlers according to water displacement and conformity to certain questionable standards such as "beauty." For roe deer, for example, this includes the amount of "pearling" on the antlers. There are lots of problems with this system, in my mind. Hunting organizations around the world have devised a number of methods to score deer. The simplest (and best, in my mind) is the one used by B&C and P&Y. SCI uses the same method, but does not deduct for non-conformity, thereby giving a deer credit for all of the "bone" that it grows. Actually, though, as a former editor of the SCI books, I'd like to see record books and the emphasis on hunting for trophies go away. Hunting success should not be judged with tape measures. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakehaffey Report post Posted October 7, 2009 I was thinking more along the lines of using technology to get the exact volume I know I dont know how to do it but I know there are people that can make it work. I think that we need a new system to credit all of the antlers. i think some records would change then. The water idea seems like the easy option but I doubt it is consistent enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted October 8, 2009 I was thinking more along the lines of using technology to get the exact volume I know I dont know how to do it but I know there are people that can make it work. I think that we need a new system to credit all of the antlers. i think some records would change then. The water idea seems like the easy option but I doubt it is consistent enough. Consistency is important, but simplicity is even more so. A measuring system to be effective must be able to used by a variety of people with minimum equipment and training, and result in each of them arriving at the same score. The B&C, P&Y, and SCI methods credit mass by recording the circumferences between antler tines. If we hunters are to keep records of our prowess, and I wish we didn't, then let's keep it simple. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted October 8, 2009 I was thinking more along the lines of using technology to get the exact volume I know I dont know how to do it but I know there are people that can make it work. I think that we need a new system to credit all of the antlers. i think some records would change then. The water idea seems like the easy option but I doubt it is consistent enough. The water method is EXACT. In fact, it will account for even smallest crevice or irregularity. Measuring is not exact because no two people will measure it the exact same way. That said, I'm with Bill on this. I wish they wouldn't measure or score at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
June Report post Posted October 8, 2009 Maybe to sci-fi, Linear laser measuring? I could see it now, "Sorry Joe, I know we've been friends for a long time". "But the machine says, your 1/8 short of the B & C". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakehaffey Report post Posted October 8, 2009 Maybe to sci-fi, Linear laser measuring? I could see it now, "Sorry Joe, I know we've been friends for a long time". "But the machine says, your 1/8 short of the B & C". Thats pretty good! If they had anything that high-tech they could keep them at every G&F location and anyone that wanted a score would have to bring them in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted October 8, 2009 i prefer the liar method. that way i always get the biggest one. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted October 9, 2009 i prefer the liar method. that way i always get the biggest one. Lark. Lark: You are not the first to choose this method, and you will not be the last as long as hunting organizations keep records. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZantlerhead Report post Posted October 9, 2009 Hey all, I have always wondered why any horned animal is scored the way they are. I saw a video a while back and this guy had a new scoring system that awarded more points for heavier bucks. He had an example of a buck that was really long but very skinny that outscored a buck that was shorter but way heavier. He gave points for diameter at the base of every tine. At least that's what I remember him doing. Anyways I was wondering what everyone thought if you were to create a box of some sort that officially measured any antlered animal by total volume of the antlers? If this box was created to give the exact volume you would get points on the actual size and not just for lengths and some mass. If you took the total volume and added the width then it seems to me scores would justify what animal truly is the biggest. I know it may seem a little far fetched of an idea but I do believe it is a doable idea. I have had this idea for a while and thought I would ask other hunters what they thought/ So if anyone has an input on the topic I would like to hear about it? Thanks! My pops and I have been discussing the same idea for a couple years as well, " measureing by, volume+spread" either useing water or sand methods with calibrated tanks and such. I think it would fully be a more acurate system of how " Big" antlers are, or how much space they take up. It would be measured to the nearest cubic centimeter maybe? The only thing we can't figure is how to measure them in a tank while attached to the skull, sheds would be easy. Then ,the average guy would not have calibrated or" special sand" and calibrated tank/scales/material and be familiar with formulas of volume displacement. Then you would have to pre soak the antlers for water methods. Then the antlers would" grow" in water, there goes the 60 day drying period. I think sand methods would be the most practical, I won't go into all the details but weve pretty much figured it out and sounds like you have too.Would be cool wouldn't it. When core samples are taken for construction applications, back at the lab you are doing tests that determin the compaction or air voids etc. etc. (weather it be concrete, asphalt blah blah blah) and the only way to do that involves measureing the Volume of the core sample , It's simple math formulas, down to thousands- hundreds- tenths of cubic inches etc. It would be cool if they were measured like Motorcycles in CC's/ cubic centimeters, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakehaffey Report post Posted October 9, 2009 Hey all, I have always wondered why any horned animal is scored the way they are. I saw a video a while back and this guy had a new scoring system that awarded more points for heavier bucks. He had an example of a buck that was really long but very skinny that outscored a buck that was shorter but way heavier. He gave points for diameter at the base of every tine. At least that's what I remember him doing. Anyways I was wondering what everyone thought if you were to create a box of some sort that officially measured any antlered animal by total volume of the antlers? If this box was created to give the exact volume you would get points on the actual size and not just for lengths and some mass. If you took the total volume and added the width then it seems to me scores would justify what animal truly is the biggest. I know it may seem a little far fetched of an idea but I do believe it is a doable idea. I have had this idea for a while and thought I would ask other hunters what they thought/ So if anyone has an input on the topic I would like to hear about it? Thanks! My pops and I have been discussing the same idea for a couple years as well, " measureing by, volume+spread" either useing water or sand methods with calibrated tanks and such. I think it would fully be a more acurate system of how " Big" antlers are, or how much space they take up. It would be measured to the nearest cubic centimeter maybe? The only thing we can't figure is how to measure them in a tank while attached to the skull, sheds would be easy. Then ,the average guy would not have calibrated or" special sand" and calibrated tank and be familiar with formulas of volume displacement. Then you would have to pre soak the antlers for water methods. Then the antlers would" grow" in water, there goes the 60 day drying period. I think sand methods would be the most practical, I won't go into all the details but weve pretty much figured it out and sounds like you have too.Would be cool wouldn't it. When core samples are taken for costruction applications, back at the lab you are doing tests that determin the compaction or air voids etc. etc. (weather it be concrete, asphalt blah blah blah) and the only way to do that involves measureing the Volume of the core sample , It's simple math formulas, down to thousands- hundreds- tenths of cubic inches etc. It would be cool if they were measured like Motorcycles in CC's/ cubic centimeters, IMO. I never thought about sand before, that might be a better way! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 300ultramag. Report post Posted October 9, 2009 velvet in sand.... yuck no thanks.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
