What do you consider.... (big buck)
#22
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".
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".
#23
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!
#26
ORIGINAL: buckeyebuckhntr
Mine is very similar to yours.....
I would call 120-140 a good buck..... 140-160 a big buck..... and 160 plus a monster.
Not an exact science, but I would call 125-140 a good buck, 140-170 a big buck, and it has to be booner to be a monster.
By the way, what is your breakdown, Buckeye?
By the way, what is your breakdown, Buckeye?
I would call 120-140 a good buck..... 140-160 a big buck..... and 160 plus a monster.
#27
ORIGINAL: Buck Magnet
around here, I would say 110-125 is a good buck, 125-150 is a big buck, and 150 and up is a monster!
around here, I would say 110-125 is a good buck, 125-150 is a big buck, and 150 and up is a monster!
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.
#28
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.



