Whitetail #127 B&C
- Thread starter Bowedark
- Start date
BOHNTR
Well-known member
VERY nice.....especially for a whitey. 
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Nice ones. Thanks for sharing. The 30-378 has some reach!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Thats a nice whitetail, but its definately not 220+ B&C.
If it were, it would blow away the Hansen buck by 17+ inches...world record typical is 213 and change.
I dont see a lick of trash on that buck to give it a non-typical score of anything close to 220.
I'm crappy at estimating deer from photos...but it looks to me like the right side of the buck is noticeably shorter than the left. I'd hate to venture a guess at score, but I'd say in the 170's at best. It is a very nice deer, a real great looking deer for sure, just not even close to 220 B&C though.
If it were, it would blow away the Hansen buck by 17+ inches...world record typical is 213 and change.
I dont see a lick of trash on that buck to give it a non-typical score of anything close to 220.
I'm crappy at estimating deer from photos...but it looks to me like the right side of the buck is noticeably shorter than the left. I'd hate to venture a guess at score, but I'd say in the 170's at best. It is a very nice deer, a real great looking deer for sure, just not even close to 220 B&C though.
elkfarmer
New member
Elkhunter
New member
Nice deer.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
I do agree that from the pic (and I concur it's hard to score from the angles and perceptions of photography) that it appears to be in the 170's.
I'm with Elkfarmer...I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Thanks again Bowedark...no slight intended.
I'm with Elkfarmer...I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Thanks again Bowedark...no slight intended.
Ten Bears
New member
Nice buck. It may have raw scored something big, but like BUZZ (choke, choke) says, after the deductions, it probably doesn't score all that high. Left side is definately taller then the right, and I underst and they subtract for that. All and all, big enough for me to put a hole in that's for sure.
Bowedark
Member
Wasn't sure about the final score it did make B&C typical top #127 list.
Don't see many Whitetail B&C posted.
If this help this buck did score at 175 gross <posting photo > I know as fact it's my buck had it scored it a muley, that whitetail dwarf that buck of mind.
It the bigs whitetail buck I ever seen on the ground or walking.
Just sought some of you would like to see the picture, that why I'm here.
Not try to get in to Pissing contest.
Don't see many Whitetail B&C posted.
If this help this buck did score at 175 gross <posting photo > I know as fact it's my buck had it scored it a muley, that whitetail dwarf that buck of mind.
It the bigs whitetail buck I ever seen on the ground or walking.
Just sought some of you would like to see the picture, that why I'm here.
Not try to get in to Pissing contest.
Attachments
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Can't argue with that Bowedark. You post some great harvests. I don't care what the whitey scores, its bigger than anything I've taken. Thanks again and congrads... keep em coming.
Helluva mule deer btw.
Helluva mule deer btw.
elkfarmer
New member
BOWEDARK, didn't mean to downplay your buck at all. that deer is bigger than anything i have ever seen awake.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bowedark, no pissing match intended, just stating the facts.
Look at the Hansen buck then look at the other buck. There is little debate that the Hansen buck has length everywhere over that buck you posted, I'd say a good 30+ inches more. Thats not to mean that the buck you posted isnt a great buck, it surely is.
Also, you score mule deer very differently than whitetail. Its just about like comparing scoring methods between bears and elk, you really cant.
I'd bet that buck may have been 127th in a 3-year recording period or for the State of Montana, but I question its the 127th largest whitetail ever harvested. I havent checked in the all-time record book, but I'd bet 127 all-time is in the upper 180's low 190's.
Thanks for the pics all the same.
Look at the Hansen buck then look at the other buck. There is little debate that the Hansen buck has length everywhere over that buck you posted, I'd say a good 30+ inches more. Thats not to mean that the buck you posted isnt a great buck, it surely is.
Also, you score mule deer very differently than whitetail. Its just about like comparing scoring methods between bears and elk, you really cant.
I'd bet that buck may have been 127th in a 3-year recording period or for the State of Montana, but I question its the 127th largest whitetail ever harvested. I havent checked in the all-time record book, but I'd bet 127 all-time is in the upper 180's low 190's.
Thanks for the pics all the same.
BCBOY
New member
Looking at the 11th Edition of the B&C, 127th place would put the buck in the 188 net range. I'm no whitetail pro but I'm not seeing the tine length on that buck to have it net 188. Still one heck of a buck regardless, one even this diehard muley nut would love to hammer.
Tom
New member
178 is #127 in the 25th Big Game Awards for 2001-2003 typical. I agree with Ten Bears and Buzz. Check the source of that info.?
SJ
New member
Great buck for sure.
Similar threads
