RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

Honestly my ranking system is Deer ,Buck, Holy Sh!t. But as defined by P&Y I'd say 130 is good (or big)150+ is Monster.

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

In my state (NC) our bowhunting association (NCBA) recognizes any buck over 100" as a "book" buck. I'll concur that a 100" buck in MY part of the state is, indeed, a GOOD buck.

I've never seen one that would go over 100" (other than the one I took, las year). It's hard for me to have an opinion on "great" and "monster".

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

I would say that a nice buck is 100-115, a big buck would be somewhere in the 115-130 and a monster buck would be anything over that. Hopefully this year i will show you all what a superduper monster looks like!:D

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

good buck would be a 120, huge buck would be 160+

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

these are good bucks in my book

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

Same here

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

That is exactly what I would say.

Statistically it is a genetic freak that even has the potential to get over 160. So, to get one over 160 not only do you have to be in the right place because of skill, you have to be lucky that one like that is even around.

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

I would agree with Buck Magnet as well. 110-125 is good, 125-150 is big (150 is REAL big), and anything above that is a monster. We've got the genetics and the food here, but the age structure is lacking.

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

110-125 is a good buck, 125-145 is a big buck, anything over 145 is huge to me

RE: What do you consider.... (big buck)
 

x2