Score

Chad262

Member
Messages
21
This is the best picture I have but from what I can see it looks like he has good fronts. I was just curious if you guys think he is in that 360-370 range or if I'm way off.
76409img1096.jpg
 
I suck at scoring elk but that's a nice bull. I would say somewhere in the 340-350 range unless his fronts really suck.

From what I have learned, anything 325-350 makes you say...........oh ya...nice bull.

once they break 350 you say judas priest....then no more words for at least 30 seconds



"That's a special feeling, Lloyd"

www.cloverleafrifles.com

https://youtu.be/l3xHt-xeNYw
 
We don't really know how long his one's and two's are?

This is what it would need to be a 350 bull, you decide.

18
18
16
17
10
50
= 129 x 2= 258
Mass 27 per side. = 54
Not strong on mass.
look at lower leg compare to antlers.
Not a huge body bull.

Inside spread maybe 40, likely 36-38.

258 tines and beams
54 mass
40 inside spread

Equals 352. If that helps at all?
 
Nice bull, but I'd call him 330". Honestly has short 3rds and 4ths and beams, so his brows would have to be special to make more than that.
 
If you can get a better pic this might help you out.

I was told if you look from the tip of his nose to his burr is about 15 to 16 inches that's what I do to field measure and x by 2 all the way up from his G1 to his G5 I'm pretty close for the most part and the top of his back to the hooves is about 45 to 55 inches that's how you can tell somewhat the main beam length are and x by 2 but looking at him right now I would say 330 340 ish It's hard to tell in this pic

still a good bull Thanks for Sharing
 
Pretty accurate advice elkslayer on the burr to nose tip and the only thing I could add is Unless he had a compact rack, 30? burr to sword is usually pretty close and it makes for a quick main beam guess. Also, top of shoulder to brisket is pretty close to 30 and helps with a main beam guess. All that said, I would put him 330ish.
 
Thank You SHADOW for clarifying I couldn't really remember the other so I didn't want to say on here and give him false info....
 
Thanks for all the advice guys! That pic was on July 15th so he should grow some more. Either way I think he would be a shooter for my wife's first bull.
 
Agree with the assessment 330ish. A 350+ bull will have a rack that looks abnormal compared to body size. It just looks disproportional , this bull doesn't reach that mark.
 
I like his whaletails. He can put on a few more inches before rubbing. I think he could finish right around that 340-345 mark.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Chad,
If your wife shoots this bull and he scores under 335,(unless he is broken) I'll buy you lunch. Hard to tell, because of no views of his fronts. 335-345 gross my guess.
 
Keep in mind he's going to look thinner when he's hard horned. and you don't score velvet. but I would agree 340 class from what we can see.


Unless you have a super good tag I can't imagine anyone not being thrilled with a 1st bull like that.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
330ish. Mains aren't real long and not a ton of length on any of his points. I agree with you though, great first bull for the wife I'd say
 
>You are way off.

Say's Mallards Only, the guy who was arguing because he was 70" off on an officially measured bull elk, based on many good photos.

I cannot see the bottom part of his rack to really put a number on it, but if I had to guess I'd say he's not 360, but probably over 340. I don't think you're "way off" -- 70" is WAY off. :D


"YOU'RE NOT WORTHY"
 
I would be shocked if he his 340. 315 to 325 would be a safe bet though. Like others have said, short main beams, mass isn't there and overall frame is that of a 310 bull. Still nice though.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-21-18 AT 06:31AM (MST)[p]>>You are way off.
>
>Say's Mallards Only, the guy who
>was arguing because he was
>70" off on an officially
>measured bull elk, based on
>many good photos.
>
>I cannot see the bottom part
>of his rack to really
>put a number on it,
>but if I had to
>guess I'd say he's not
>360, but probably over 340.
> I don't think you're
>"way off" -- 70" is
>WAY off. :D
>
>
>"YOU'RE NOT WORTHY"

This from the guy who refused to post the Certified score sheet that he claimed existed because he knew he was FOS.
 
>This from the guy who refused
>to post the Certified score
>sheet that he claimed existed
>because he knew he was
>FOS.

Why do you need a "Certified" anything when you can look it up in the B&C/P&Y books?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-18 AT 09:39AM (MST)[p]I agree he is weak on mass. His head is down hill. His front legs are below his hind legs. He still has decent space between tines, his beams are still above his back. He also has some width, not great. For those reasons I think he has around a 50 inch beam. HIs 2nds and 3rds look to be around 15 inches.

We just don't know his fronts?
I would be shocked if he is under 325.

Any recent pictures?
 
You guys do know that 10" difference in score is less than 1/2" per tine, right? I can't estimate that closely although I claim to be able to do so sometimes! LOL

337 3/8" gross. That's my story and I'm sticking with it!

Zeke

#livelikezac
 
>Because you're as FOS as most
>of the guides and outfitters
>who badly overestimate scores, either
>intentionally or unintentionally.


Please share an example of where I was ever FOS? Funny.
 
>>Because you're as FOS as most
>>of the guides and outfitters
>>who badly overestimate scores, either
>>intentionally or unintentionally.
>
>
>Please share an example of where
>I was ever FOS? Funny.
>

You did that for me.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom