Help me visually score this muley buck??

[BRTreedogs]

Op deer id say mid 170s definitely a shooter for sure.
There are 4 mass measurements so going from 4" to 6 will add 16"

Taller scores more the wide as everything measures twice.
If his backs matched fronts he'd be 190
If he had mass he'd be 180s

Mass and matching forks 200-205

 

[Oregon Hunter]

Download a boone and Crockett score sheet

But then how would I claim my forked horns score 400"

 

[Oregon Hunter]

Op deer id say mid 170s definitely a shooter for sure.
There are 4 mass measurements so going from 4" to 6 will add 16"

Taller scores more the wide as everything measures twice.
If his backs matched fronts he'd be 190
If he had mass he'd be 180s

Mass and matching forks 200-205

Thanks for the explanation about mass and height, that was really helpful!

 

[street]

Op deer id say mid 170s definitely a shooter for sure.
There are 4 mass measurements so going from 4" to 6 will add 16"

Taller scores more the wide as everything measures twice.
If his backs matched fronts he'd be 190
If he had mass he'd be 180s

Mass and matching forks 200-205

Agree with treedogs. I roughed it 172+extras. Back forks, mass and spread his "weaker" spots. Great deer.

 

[Travis907]

Very nice buck regardless of the score and I’d definitely shoot it! I say it goes lower 180s gross!

 

[Oregon Hunter]

Very nice buck regardless of the score and I’d definitely shoot it! I say it goes lower 180s gross!

I would gladly take that Buck home too! Now if we're good would just give me a tag that is valid in November....

 

[Cwsharer]

187

 

[Aoudaddy86]

I may end up looking stupid here but unless I'm missing something, I can't see that buck being under 180" gross. He looks thin on the one picture, but you can see his mass in all the others. I think the length makes his mass misleading. The one thing I can see that isn't fantastic is the back right fork. Gross I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear this Deer goes 185+... I don't see 170" Hes closer to 190" than he is 170". Maybe im missing something, tell me you actually killed him and we'll get an answer. lol

This...

 

[MattB]

I think 180 gross, but that weaker back righ for will limit his score. Great buck though.

 

[S.Clancy]

I bet that buck is bigger than he looks. But I added up some numbers, and get around 180 gross. Tank

 

[WCB]

I'd say upper 170s to low 180s due to kickers and eye guards. A face on shot would be nice. 2 of the 3 pictures being from behind doesn't personally help.

He probably has 10 of extras including eye guards.

He looks fairly semetrical and if I was just field judging in the moment this is what I come up with.

Beams: 23
G1: 2
G2: 13
G3: 9
G4: 13
H1: 4.5
H2: 4.5
H3: 4.25
H4: 4.25

77.5 x 2 = 155
Width: 20-22 so lets say 21

176....add 8 for the kickers 184"

Doesn't look very big bodied though...spread actually could be 2 to 3 inches less...

 

[Oregon Hunter]

This...

I wish I got a chance to pull the trigger on him. I would have got in a lot of trouble though, because it was during elk season which is off limits for us in Oregon lol

 

[Oregon Hunter]

I bet that buck is bigger than he looks. But I added up some numbers, and get around 180 gross. Tank

That's around the number a lot of folks were coming up with, so it's what I'll quote from now on. Dang, I wanted to say I've laid eyes on a 200" buck so bad!!!

 

[Oregon Hunter]

I'd say upper 170s to low 180s due to kickers and eye guards. A face on shot would be nice. 2 of the 3 pictures being from behind doesn't personally help.

He probably has 10 of extras including eye guards.

He looks fairly semetrical and if I was just field judging in the moment this is what I come up with.

Beams: 23
G1: 2
G2: 13
G3: 9
G4: 13
H1: 4.5
H2: 4.5
H3: 4.25
H4: 4.25

77.5 x 2 = 155
Width: 20-22 so lets say 21

176....add 8 for the kickers 184"

Doesn't look very big bodied though...spread actually could be 2 to 3 inches less...

Thanks for taking the time to break down your estimations of his score so thoroughly. I've never actually scored anything, so this was really interesting to see

 

[S.Clancy]

That's around the number a lot of folks were coming up with, so it's what I'll quote from now on. Dang, I wanted to say I've laid eyes on a 200" buck so bad!!!

I've only seen 1 for sure 200" buck on the hood and all I could think was, "@$%$ #$%^*&^ $%^&!!!!!"

Also, a 180" is a tank in my, and I would guess almost anyone else's, opinion.

 

[Redwood]

I would say mid 170s. His backs just don't match his fronts and average mass. Width is the measurement I care the least about.

 

[clwg97]

Don't worry about score, just shoot!

 

[Russp17]

A few years ago during elk season, we saw this buck chasing does during the mule deer rut. Compared to some of the trophy states, we don't often get big bucks in Oregon. I think this guy is big score-wise, but to be honest I have very little skill in scoring animals. Any guesses on what this guy would tape out at? My shot in the dark would be 190", but I could be way off.


View attachment 251226


View attachment 251228View attachment 251227

I think he is low 180s. Nice deer. He has some cool junk on the side.

 

[Oregon Hunter]

Don't worry about score, just shoot!

Don't worry about score, just shoot!

If I would have had a tag I would have shot without thinking twice!

 

[Oregon Hunter]

I would say mid 170s. His backs just don't match his fronts and average mass. Width is the measurement I care the least about.

We don't get many wide bucks in Oregon. Funny enough though, the only time I think I have truly seen a 30 incher was about a quarter mile from where that picture was taken.