The Adams deer ( that HUGE 10 pointer from Canada)

stealthycat · 01-18-2002, 06:13 AM

Just read North American Whietail - the net score (unofficial) is 203 4/8 - I was about 7-9 inches shy on my guesstimate. Had the drop tine not been present, we would have been looking at a 5x5 typical buck netting something like 214-215 B&C.

AWESOME deer - and why aint my hunting-pictures working anymore ??

RuRu12 · 01-18-2002, 07:13 AM

stealthy - I just picked up the mag yesterday. That is one of, if not the most impressive whitetails I've ever seen. Deer like this show the real weakness of B&C's scoring system. How could anyone view that droptine as a negative? Even though the Hanson deer scores higher I would be willing to bet that if both of these deer were alive and standing side-by-side 99% of all hunters would shoot the Adams deer thinking it was bigger.

Tazman · 01-18-2002, 07:59 AM

I have a question on the B&C scoring, if that drop tine were broken off, would it still be counted as a negative or simply be ignored? Let me clarify a bit, it had been broke off for a while before the deer was taken.

The Tazman

RuRu12 · 01-18-2002, 08:11 AM

Tazman - If it isn't there it can't be counted as a deduction. There have been a couple of racks disqualified and removed from the B&C records after it was proven that points had been removed to raise the typical score. In both cases photos turned-up that showed the points clearly visible after the deer had been harvested, and they were later removed before the deer were officially scored.

Edited by - RuRu12 on 01/18/2002 09:13:28

buckmine · 01-18-2002, 09:34 AM

One of those deer that had the drop tines taken of was 10 miles from where I hunt. It was located in Sauk Centre, Minnesota. It would have been bigger than the Breen Buck which is our state record.

I don't mind the B&C scoring system. It is just one way to measure a rack. Doesn't Buckmasters have there scoring system. I wouldn't mind a new scoring system that measures a racks volume.

RuRu12 · 01-18-2002, 09:59 AM

buckmine - There are a couple of systems based on the total amount of antler grown. One of them is the Burkett system. One of them is based on the amount of water displaced by the rack, another is based on the weight of the antlers. If you are interested in the details I'll lookup the various systems when I get home and I'll post the various systems.

The big problem with any of these systems that has kept them from becoming popular is that they are not very descriptive of the antlers being scored. If you hear a buck is a mainframe 10 point typical that grosses 220 B&C it creates a mental picture that we can relate to. Do you get the same mental picture if I tell you I killed a buck whose rack displaces 2900 cc of water?

I think the B&C system is the best system currently being used. I think the gross score is more descriptive and more accurately reflects the size of a buck’s antlers than does the net score.

I personally would like to see the B&C system modified so that nontypical points and side to side asymmetry are not deducted unless it exceeds a certain percentage of the racks gross score. It seems to me a shame that a head that is larger and more impressive in every dimension can be listed lower than another head because of a few inches in side to side differences or a few short nontypical points.

The Breen buck that you mention is a prime example of this inequity. Many deer antler collectors and aficionados for years considered the Breen buck to be larger and more impressive than the Jordan buck. The Jordan buck reigned for years as B&C’s World Record because of it’s almost perfect symmetry, even though higher gross scoring typical bucks have been taken.

Edited by - RuRu12 on 01/18/2002 11:20:36

Tazman · 01-18-2002, 10:34 AM

Excellent post RuRu12 and I agree on every point.

The Tazman

buckmine · 01-18-2002, 11:38 AM

What keeps B&C from scoring in more than one way. They can have symmetry score, non-typical score, no-deduction score, volume score and maybe more. I wouldn't have a problem with a volume measurement if compared to other deer. You start accumulating those volume measurements and you start to see those deer that rank at the top. I am sure that if someone owned a non-typical that ranks 25th but number one in volume measurement they would appreciate the number one status.

txhunter58 · 01-18-2002, 05:27 PM

Very good post ruru. I agree with everything you said. Most of us could care less about deductions when we pull the trigger. Therefore B&C gross scores are all most of us should be interested.

A couple of years our deer camp came up with our own system. We picked out the 3 most desirable traits (decided by us). They were:

1) total inches of antler
2) widest outside spread of the main beams
3) mass

We then weighted each to contribute aprox. 40% total inches, 30% spread, and 30% mass. It was more complicated than B&C so we only used it a couple of years, but the theory behind it was interesting. We especially felt mass is not adequately represented in the B&C. If you had a choice between a MASSIVE 10 pointer whitetail that was 18" wide and a thin racked 10 point rack also 18", which would you take, assuming that total inches was the same? It goes without saying that everyone would take the rack with more mass and yet the B&C score of the first buck, although higher, would not be significantly higher.