60" of mass

Deer1975 · Oct 14, 2011

Is 60" of mass on an elk good? Is that a decent number for mass? Just want to know if that is a good number.

300wbymann · Oct 14, 2011

not really, i shot a 4x4 that had 75" of mass, and it was a deer, so sounds like a young one

Deer1975 · Oct 14, 2011

>not really, i shot a 4x4
>that had 75" of
>mass, and it was a
>deer, so sounds like a
>young one

Dangit I thought I had got a good one.

pauns08 · Oct 14, 2011

75" of mass on a deer my ass lol

300wbymann · Oct 14, 2011

>75" of mass on a deer
>my ass lol

seriously???i dont know how i could have SCREAMED "SARCASM" any louder................

muleymaniac · Oct 14, 2011

LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-11 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-11 AT 11:56?PM (MST)

>not really, i shot a 4x4
>that had 75" of
>mass, and it was a
>deer, so sounds like a
>young one

ok of the top 50 heads the largest base measurement was 8 they average 6 1/2
since ya only get 4 measurenments per side 8x8 is 64

as we all know after the basemeasurment the antlers get smaller in size.

so post the pictures with a recorded scoring sheet

75 mass on a 4x4 BAHHHAHAAAAAA get out the waders it pilin high

just for info- mass on a 350 class bull should average around 60

257Tony · Oct 15, 2011

The idiocy in this thread is making my head hurt..... Some of these guys need to have an MRI to see if they actually are brain dead......

slamdunk · Oct 15, 2011

60" is a common number for a good mature bull, but they do get better.
Now 75" on a deer.....ROFLMAO!!!!

300wbymann · Oct 15, 2011

if i say 100", on 4x4 buck, next time- will you see the "sarcasm" in the post? i figured 75" would cover my bases but i didnt factor in the ignorance of 1/2 the guys on this board........

Roy · Oct 15, 2011

>60" is a common number for
>a good mature bull, but
>they do get better.
>Now 75" on a deer.....ROFLMAO!!!!

Yeah but if he has 15 inch bases...

HOOK 'EM!

pauns08 · Oct 15, 2011

Relax 300, I totally understood the sarcasm thats why I put the LOL at the end of my post

alp75 · Oct 15, 2011

Some people don't understand sarcasm in print and some people don't understand the lol and smiley faces either.

300wbymann · Oct 16, 2011

i was hoping 75" was a high enough number- i mean if it's impossible(75 " is impossible) maybe next time i'll say i killed a 200" buck, and that was without measuring any length of tine. 200" on just mass alone

alp75 · Oct 16, 2011

That was close, I almost missed the little wink at the end of your post. I was about to freak out on you!

Tagalong173 · Oct 16, 2011

I killed a buck with 700 inches of mass. I decided not to get him scored because I didn't want to embarrass people.

)

alp75 · Oct 16, 2011

Can we get back on topic here? The poor fella asked a simple question and here we are kind on topic, but waaaay off.

I shot a good bull last year. He had around 66" of mass if I remember right. He scored 372. Here is a pic for reference.

birdbuster · Oct 16, 2011

Just like all numbers in scoring the mass total can be deceiving. On a typical bull 60" is very nice mass. Much of that however can be misleading depending how close the points are together. Some bulls have their brow tines very close so you can get a measurement of up to 12". A similar bull whose brows are 5 or 6" apart might only get 7". Times that by 2 and you have up to 10" difference just because of how the brow tines are placed. I think we should go to a 'displacement' scoring system. Then the one with the most bone will always score the best.

Hornseeker · Oct 17, 2011

Is 60" of mass on an elk good?

YES

apollosmith · Oct 17, 2011

For reference, this bull has 61 1/8" of mass. Scores 372" total.

300wbymann · Oct 17, 2011

hard to believe my 4x4 muley has more mass than your elk does- but boy was it a hooter of a buck! well if it weren't for the mass it would be a dink, but if you add in 125" of mass, this forked horn is a friekin' toad!