That's why I think the weight of a rack is much more indicative of the size than even the gross score would suggest. I am not real familiar with the Buck Master scoring system, but B&C and P&Y do not take into account the mass of the tines themselves, so there is bone not being accounted for even in the gross score. As an example, I have seen both the Jordan Buck (former world record typical) and the Hanson Buck (current world record typical) in person and the Jordan Buck is more impressive because of the sheer mass of the entire rack including the tines themselves. While the Hanson Buck is surely impressive, it looks spindly compared to the Jordan Buck. While I am not sure, I would bet that there is more actual bone in the Jordan rack than the Hanson rack. Just some food for thought.