Definition of a raghorn

View attachment 130260
Still a raghorn 295-300 in

Just for education purposes, this bull is quite a bit south of 300, respectfully. Not that it matters the least bit in a chest thumping way, as it’s a fine bull that most of us would shoot every time! Likely 3.5 or 4.5.

Also, raghorn is not a negative term. It’s describing the physical configuration.
 
Last edited:
With elk I am satisfied with 4 points or better. Rag horn is anything less than a royal and more than a spike. I am a meat hunter and I would take a four point or better which technically starts out as a raghorn.
 
With elk I am satisfied with 4 points or better. Rag horn is anything less than a royal and more than a spike. I am a meat hunter and I would take a four point or better which technically starts out as a raghorn.
If you’re a meat hunter you should shoot mature bulls. They have more meat. If you shoot spikes and cows we will have to call you @ElkStalker.
 
If you’re a meat hunter you should shoot mature bulls. They have more meat. If you shoot spikes and cows we will have to call you @ElkStalker.

Nope. Reason I am a meat hunter is the cows and younger 4 pts are way more tender meat. I will not take a calf but with elk, 4 points or bigger in my sights, I pull the trigger.
 
Just for education purposes, this bull is quite a bit south of 300, respectfully. Not that it matters the least bit in a chest thumping way, as it’s a fine bull that most of us would shoot every time! Likely 3.5 or 4.5.

Also, raghorn is not a negative term. It’s describing the physical configuration.

Then how big is it? Adding things up I can see how it might be pushing 300” gross. It’s not exactly a great pic to try to judge from, but I could see 290”-300” possible. I would definitely be more surprised to find out that it taped 330” than I would be to find out that it taped 270”, so 300” might be on the optimistic side of an estimate made only with that picture. Still...it’s a lot bigger than the 240” gross bull on my wall.
 
Last edited:
Then how big is it? Adding things up I can see how it might be pushing 300” gross. It’s not exactly a great pic to try to judge from, but I could see 290”-300” possible. It’s a lot bigger than the 240” gross bull on my wall.
Honestly the point of the pic was just to say that IMHO a bigger five point is still a raghorn by the actual definition of the term.

Also just so there is no bs, that was the gross not, net. The bull was a fighter and all broken up and I got the tines rebuilt as close to even as possible, because that’s what I wanted on my wall. To score I followed the BC directions and used their online score sheet.🤷‍♂️ His main beams were fully intact when I killed him and measured 51.5 and 52. I would be happy to post my sheet and pictures if anyone is really interested though I doubt anyone gives a rip about some dudes 5x5. I think we have diverted the thread enough already, the OP was asking for clarification of a term.
 
I have always used the term somewhat losely to define any immature bull, in the 2.5 to 3.5 year old range, bigger than a spike but smaller than a decent 5 point. Although number of points is arbitrary since my first bull, a rag horn, was a 5x6, and the pic I posted earlier was a 7x7, but still a raghorn.
 
Honestly the point of the pic was just to say that IMHO a bigger five point is still a raghorn by the actual definition of the term.

Also just so there is no bs, that was the gross not, net. The bull was a fighter and all broken up and I got the tines rebuilt as close to even as possible, because that’s what I wanted on my wall. To score I followed the BC directions and used their online score sheet.🤷‍♂️ His main beams were fully intact when I killed him and measured 51.5 and 52. I would be happy to post my sheet and pictures if anyone is really interested though I doubt anyone gives a rip about some dudes 5x5. I think we have diverted the thread enough already, the OP was asking for clarification of a term.

In case you didn’t notice, I was defending you. I found 300” plausible, and was asking the guy who said it wasn’t even close to be a little more specific, and pointing out that without a tape, it was hard to tell. I’m glad it’s yours and that you taped it. I’d like to hear him try to back up his statement.
 
In case you didn’t notice, I was defending you. I found 300” plausible, and was asking the guy who said it wasn’t even close to be a little more specific, and pointing out that without a tape, it was hard to tell. I’m glad it’s yours and that you taped it. I’d like to hear him try to back up his statement.
I was responding to twsnow in my mind lol.

Honestly, it’s the first time I really tried to score anything. If someone wants to start a common mistakes of scoring thread I will gladly contribute my pics for critique. Would love to learn how BC scorers really do it.
I do think the scoring process is kinda weird and we should switch to volume.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just for education purposes, this bull is quite a bit south of 300, respectfully. Not that it matters the least bit in a chest thumping way, as it’s a fine bull that most of us would shoot every time! Likely 3.5 or 4.5.

Also, raghorn is not a negative term. It’s describing the physical configuration.

On the hoof, at a 1,000 yards, running, through timber on a foggy day, I could tell you this bull was 290-300" ten out of ten times.
 
Back
Top