New way to score antlers

[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?

 

 

 

 

[GreyGhost85]

For years people have been bringing up a "water submersion test" for scoring. You fill a certain sized container with water, submerge the rack and however much the water rises would be the score. This test would account for every bump of bone that the animal grows. Seems like it would be a good system to me, but there would probably be too many variables. Your system does have interesting results, however

[DILL]

On the water method how do you account for different skull sizes. For instance a full skull or a skull cap? I like the water test because I think if the animal grew it, it should be scored

[GreyGhost85]

On the water method how do you account for different skull sizes. For instance a full skull or a skull cap? I like the water test because I think if the animal grew it, it should be scored

that is one of the variables. the antlers would probably have to be sawed off below the burr

[bonecollector777]

I've heard the water test before but the amount of water displaced on a 400 inch bull and a 350 bull is very minimal so hard to tell the difference. Also would be tough to get each bull or buck in exactly the same position to get fair measurements. As for your proposal of measuring tine mass that's gonna be tough to get anyone to agree to because those guys with wide bucks and bulls won't like it. Guys with massive tines will like it but Other guys won't. Most bulls that have massive tines also have massive beams to go with it so they are already getting higher mass measurements than those bulls with skinny antlers. I think if it could all be done again just take out spread all together. Antelope don't get spread so not sure why elk and deer do.

[longshooter]

If you ask me the whole score system kind of has ruined hunting. I remember 30 years ago it was either a 2 point,3 point, 4 point or it was a 18" tall lope or a 30" wide buck etc. Now its all about holding out for a 110" Coues, 400" bull or 90" lope. Seems life was much simpler back then.

[twowindy]

I agree that the spread should not count.I was told years ago they used to include the spread on antelope.They finally gave it up.

[GreyGhost85]

Up until probably 15-20 years ago, if a buck's mainbeam length was greater than his spread, or vise-versa, it was a deduction.

[lancetkenyon]

It is all about the memories for me. And how hard I worked for them to earn my game. Would I like to get a 400" bull? Heck yes. But my daughter's 5x5 last year was the best bull I have ever had the pleasure of being a part of. I honestly doubt I will ever beat those memories. I know none of my personal game stories can beat that trip.

[rageinthesage]

It's fine the way it is, imo.

[WHT_MTNMAN]

Grey- still is kinda...you only get credit for spread up to the longest mainbeam..

[Becker]

So what your saying is your new method isn't really any different than the old method? Because the scores are way close to each other. So how does it really make a difference?

 

I actually agree with you as far as mass on points. But the old system has been there sooooooo long. And it really is a good one. You get credit for the height when you measure those long tines that grew so tall. And you can only take spread credit equal to the length of the main beams. So if they are way way wide they don't get that extra. Also How are you going to account for all of those trophies if you want to compare yours? Not sure that sounds right but hopefully you get my idea.

 

There's always those who say they don't care about score, but you'll see their picture when they shoot a big one. Hahahaha

[ThomC]

I score by the taste of the tenderloins. My tenderloins taste better than your bone soup.

[.270]

b&c did away with the excessive inside spread deduction years ago. pretty sure sci doesn't even record the spread. kinda dumb to get points for air between the beams and not get credit for the mass of the points. when b&c developed their scoring system things were a lot different. only folks that cared much about a "score" were rich guys that wanted to be able to brag to each other. joe hunter was into it for meat and true sport. so, i guess it's lot like it is now. there was some effort many years ago to use water displacement to score antlers. can't remember the guy that spearheaded it. scores are ok i guess. to me, a guy oughta go hunting, shoot something they're happy with and then get ready for the next hunt. i probably have close to a dozen racks and skulls laying around that will make one book or another and have never entered even one. but that's me. if i ever shot something that might be a world record, i would enter it tho. if you wanna stretch a tape on something, have at it. if you don't, that's good too. main thing is too hunt. get outta town and into the wild country. ain't no better smell than when you open the bolt on a clean early morning right after you shot a buck and you get that whiff o' burnt gunpowder. scores don't matter much then. Lark.

[OpticNerd]

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.

 

 

So what your saying is your new method isn't really any different than the old method? Because the scores are way close to each other. So how does it really make a difference?

I actually agree with you as far as mass on points. But the old system has been there sooooooo long. And it really is a good one. You get credit for the height when you measure those long tines that grew so tall. And you can only take spread credit equal to the length of the main beams. So if they are way way wide they don't get that extra. Also How are you going to account for all of those trophies if you want to compare yours? Not sure that sounds right but hopefully you get my idea.

There's always those who say they don't care about score, but you'll see their picture when they shoot a big one. Hahahaha

 

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.