Once our other buck gets scored and posted it’ll be a little more than that hopefully Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So one thing many fail to realize is a buck with solid fat overall mass, talking even tines that are thick - will never score what they "look" or "feel" like. If you took away Dan's buck's thick mass throughout it would quickly appear just fine to the eye. I shot a THICK tined buck in 2019 that "looks" much bigger than he is. There is no perfect scoring system for sure, and THICK bucks are the biggest losers in arguably the "best" scoring system which is gross B&C essentially.
Yeah got 123 7/8 when I add it together. @bloodcrick has big fingers...probably got in the way of using the calculator correctly is all LOL
I always thought about a better system. There just isnt one that is very practical or easy. One way to accurately score would be to make a cast mold of the rack and fill with a some controlled hardening substance. The volume of the substance used to fill the mold would then be used to measure size. If density and weight were to be factored in also then the actual rack could be weighed after a drying period. Im definitely not a scientist but some system like this would have to be way more accurate. I know, i know, its ridiculous but these are the types of things that go through my fried noodle. Just not practical for us that dont have science labs in our garages Unfortunately the B&C is most practical and easy all you need is a flexible tape and a pencil but leaves way too much margin for error to an untrained measurer. I think Alot of people skip the fact that on mass measurements you take the lowest measurement in that given area. Alot of people measure tine length from tip to the middle of the main beam or even the bottom. Instead of where it leaves the top of the beam. I take a zip tie and make it into a ring, slip it over the tine all the way to the beam. This helps with the line on that. This is all for fun. If there was money involved i would care but if someone wants to say his 115 is a 180 then so be it. (Not talking about Illinois outdoorsman). Plus hes from my state!
I believe there is a water displacement measuring method but that is not practical for most people to do
There you go! Even better yet. Yes very impractical but there has to be a better way that is. I guess someone way smarter than me would have thought of it by now.
