It'll Fool You

[Mike Belt]

Some of the pics you guys have been posting have been some pretty bucks but guessing what they might score can fool you. First of all, a wide rack really looks nice but the difference between inside and outside the ears may only be 3" and that is only added to the score once. Tine length will add to the score a lot quicker and the more tines the higher you go. While in velvet, tine length isn't neccessarily overly exaggerated. Mass may very well be and mass will boost scores in a hurry. Velvet may make mass appear up to 2" larger than what it will actually measure. Once it's shed and figuring on a typical 8 pointer you'll have 8 mass measurements, the guesstimate could be off as much as 8"-16". Once he sheds the velvet you can get down to the brass tacks of mass measurement. Just as an example the difference between the score of a buck with a 4 1/8" base and a 5" base is only 7/8". Doesn't sound like much but if he was an 8 pointer and carried that same representative mass all the way up it would amount to about 7" added to the score.

For those not interested in scores that's OK too. He'd just be bigger,

 

[TheLBLman]

Totally agree. Good info, Mike.

 

[Andy S.]

....the guesstimate could be off as much as 8"-16".

Is it total mass measurement, or overall score you speak of here? I think the latter. If someone misses the total mass measurement by that much, they need to quit estimating gross scores.

 

[tree_ghost]

Great post Mike!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tennessee Lead]

Inches are overrated [emoji12]

 

[Mike Belt]

Both Andy. A buck that has a lot of mass anyway observed early on before any of the velvet begins to shrink may have up to an extra 2" of mass per mass measurement. Of course that gets smaller as the velvet shrinks. I'd guess that most of the pics posted in the last month or so didn't have velvet over 1/4" thick. That would still account for about 1" per mass measurement if he carried that mass all the way out totaling 8" that wouldn't be there once shed. If someone was guesstimating score and was dead on but included those "in velvet" measurements he'd be off by 8". I give credit to those that take this into account and their guesstimates are without that velvet. However, not everyone does and it makes for such a discrepancy in scoring. If you're off that much in mass estimation then it stands to reason you'll be off that much in overall.

 

[Andy S.]

10-4, what I thought you meant. Of all the bucks (120"-160" gross) that I've seen scored at Ames and other places in west TN over the years, 85% or more had 28"-32" of total mass. Unless the antlers are super skinny (<26" total mass), or real heavy (>34"), I usually assume 30" on most of the bucks posted here when estimating gross scores.

 

[TheLBLman]

Another thing that can "fool" us is simply misjudging the assumed length of those tines due to a lack of pics and then not knowing the body size of that buck we're trying to score by a pic or two or three.

Most of the "score" comes from the tine length (as well as the number of those tines).
It takes a heck of an 8-point mainframe to break 140 gross.

 

[Boone 58]

:super:

 

[ROUGH COUNTRY HUNTER]

Velvet bucks look bigger for sure

 

[Andy S.]

Another thing that can "fool" us is simply misjudging the assumed length of those tines ....

Agree, but my experience has been we tend to underestimate tine length because of the extra mass the velvet "appears" to add, which won't be there in hard horn. For example, most hunters would estimate a true 9" tine as 8" in full velvet and 10" in hard horn due to the fact that it appears a little more stubby in velvet and more thin in hard horn (comparison judgement on the estimators part). Over time, you have to calibrate your brain to visually estimate the tine length versus mass versus buck's body size to get in the ballpark of guessing gross scores accurately. Over the last 12 years, us Ames members have had to fine tune our skills to avoid fines and loss of hunting time. Even with all of the practice we have accumulated over the years, mistakes still happen, especially when the chase phase is on and you have a split second to make a decision.

 

[Andy S.]

It takes a heck of an 8-point mainframe to break 140 gross.

Very very true statement. Breaking 140 (141"+) can be way different from scaring the h*ll out of 140 (136"+), and most times this error in judgement is hard to visually see in instances where you have just a pic or two to judge from, just as you stated.

 

[wobblegobble]

Ditto , Mike Belt! I see so many on here calling 120 inch deer 140's lol

 

[ZachMarkus]

Some of the bucks that we have killed that we previously had on camera ended up scoring 5"-10" less than what we figured in the trail cam photos but others we were dead on. I guess it just depends on the photo and how the deer is standing ,etc...

 

[Andy S.]

I guess it just depends on the photo and how the deer is standing ,etc...

Very true. For the majority of the bucks I had on camera over the last decade, and someone killed, I have traditionally underscored gross score by 3-5". I think this is just how I have my brain calibrated due to the unique hunting situation in which I participate (gross score determines legal buck and fines assessed). It would benefit me to undershoot one (underestimate), rather than overshoot one (overestimate)in our club. With that said, there have been a handful of instances where I was over, mostly when the buck had a little body and my "comparison gauge" was not calibrated correctly in my head. Small body deer make horns appear larger than they are.

 

[TheLBLman]

Just keep in mind "mature" does not mean "large" bodied.

A mature buck has a very different body configuration, but can still be a small bodied deer.
A few years ago I killed one I thought would scare the heck out of 135-140 range.
I'd only seen him by himself, and his rack appeared that big, mainly based on the assumption his body size would have had him field dressing at least 140 lbs ---- he "looked" it.

But that buck ended up barely dressing out at over 100 lbs (about 40 to 50% smaller body than thought), and his rack ended up grossing right at 120.

Less data (often pics), typically means less accuracy in estimating score.

On the other hand, I once passed up a buck I thought would gross under 125, but he was a large-bodied buck, and when someone else killed him, he grossed over 140 as a clean 8-pointer. I don't regret passing him, as at that time, I was determined to not take an 8-pt under 130; my only regret was misjudging his score. I truly enjoyed everything else about the hunt and experiences in observing him. If he had lived another year, I'd have targeted him regardless of any score.

 

[Andy S.]

Just keep in mind "mature" does not mean "large" bodied.

True, but the majority of the ones I have seen firsthand were bigger bodied, thus why I assume 160 lbs+ field dressed on the majority of the mature bucks, especially if their neck size helps me calibrate my brain a little better and fine tune my weight guess.

But that buck ended up barely dressing out at over 100 lbs (about 40 to 50% smaller body than thought), and his rack ended up grossing right at 120.

I know all too well what you speak of, I have been in that boat twice in the last twelve years. About 10 years ago, one buck grossed 121" and dressed 110 lbs (aged at 2.5) , and the other grossed 137" and dressed 108 lbs (aged at 2.5). :shock:

Less data (often pics), typically means less accuracy in estimating score.

Very true, but you can be under just as much as you are over with a limited data set.

On the other hand, I once passed up a buck I thought would gross under 125, but he was a large-bodied buck, and when someone else killed him, he grossed over 140 as a clean 8-pointer. I don't regret passing him, as at that time, I was determined to not take an 8-pt under 130; my only regret was misjudging his score. I truly enjoyed everything else about the hunt and experiences in observing him. If he had lived another year, I'd have targeted him regardless of any score.

Same thing happened to a buddy of mine last year. He was dead set on not shooting an 8 point under 130" and he got one good hard horn picture of a buck in November and asked another acquaintance what that buck would score. The guy told him 125" tops, so when the buck walked by about a week later, he passed on him. The buck was killed few weeks later and grossed 135". I told him that you win some and you lose some, but that didn't make him smile either.

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . you win some and you lose some, but that didn't make him smile either.

I figure so long as I'm enjoying the journey, I'm winning.

Seriously, I've never really regretted passing up any particular buck, although there are some I've passed I wouldn't have regretted if I'd taken them. But I have taken several I'd have preferred to have passed, simply because they ended up being younger or smaller antlered than I had guessed.

I've probably passed several bucks larger-antlered than anything I've ever killed ---- with no regrets.
It's just a given that some you pass will never be seen again and some will be killed by your hunting buddies or unknown strangers; but all you kill never get any older.

Enjoy the journey!

 

[Andy S.]

^^^^Yes indeed!

 

[dgb7mm]

Andy I still remember the sight of his truck door flyin open to tell me his bent brow buck had been shot! And he scored 135. He was slightly upset!