ntcbassman

this subject has come up on a local site im on and none seems to know the answer (definatively)

what is the standard used for determining if a buck is a typical or nontypical. in other words, some bucks look nontypical cause they are screaming with abnormal points. some other nontypicals you can barely see any abnormal points.

so back to the question. how many "abnormal points" or "abnormal inches are needed in order for a buck to be considered nontypical.

i have googled this to death and can't find anything... help?

waiting_for_a_gift

It is not a "black & white" answer. In order to enter a buck in the Boone & Crocket record book, it has to have a certain minimum score for typical (170, I believe) and for non-typical the number is something higher 195??? I believe also that there has to be a certain number of inches of non-typical growth recorded for the rack in order to be entered in the book as a non-typical.

In measuring any rack, the first steps in the process are to measure the main beams, typical points, etc, just exactly as you would for a typical. Then if there is non-typical growth or points you measure them. To arrive at the typical score, you subtract the non-typical inches from the net typical score. To arrive at the non-typical score, you add the non-typical growth to the net typical score. It is a little confusing, but at the end of the day, some big bucks qualify as bothtypicaland non-typical.

waiting_for_a_gift

how many "abnormal points" or "abnormal inches are needed in order for a buck to be considered nontypical.

I just visited the Boone & Crocket website, and couldn't find a definitive answer. Maybe there isn't a minimum. I was right about the 170 and 195 numbers though.

Lets say you had a buck that scored 180 net typical, but had 6" of non-typical growth. Wouldn't qualify as non-typical for all time, but subtract the 6" for 174, qualifyies astypical.

Same buck has 16" of non-typical growth, qualifies as non-typical (196), but NOT as typical, would only be 164.

190 net typical with up to 19" non-typical growth would qualify in either category.

For lesser bucks if there's non-typical growth, just add or subtract it to the net typical score and that's your bragging position.

ntcbassman

it makes sense.. i too figured there would be a "minimum" number of points/inches to qualify as nontypical but then again im far from an expert. your explanation makes tremedous sense. thanks

salukipv1

goto boone and crocketts website....they'll define it for you.

timbercruiser

I don't understand why they didn't start using 1/10 ths instead of 1/8 ths in the measurement. It would be a lot more easy.

PYbuckhunter

Here is Boone & Crockett's definition of a non-typical rack.....

Antlers that have at least one abnormal point. An abnormal point is any point that does not originate from the main beam in one of the normal (e.g., G1, G2, G3, etc.) antler tine locations.

ntcbassman

there's the definitive definition we were looking for. thanks pybuckhunter and may i say that is a bad a## avatar!

Bob H in NH

this was my understanding and a "non typical point" isn't always easy to tell, based on the Beatty buck I believe that each point coming off the main beam has to be 100% uniquely attached to the main beam, so if they share even 1 mm of common attachment point, its non-typical.

Scoring a typical you deduct anything that isn't perfectly symmetrical, so if G2 on right is 12 inches and G2 on left is 12 4/8 inches, then you deduct teh 4/8 off the final score. They do 1/8 cause that's what measuring tapes have, never seen one with 1/10 inch marks.

BarnesX.308

You can classify your buck either way, if it has abnormal points. A 200" non-typical could also be called a 170" typical with 30" of junk.

I would say for the plain old name "non-typical", you could throw in any deer that had too much abnormal growth to consider scoring typical.