OpticNerd

Shane is the real deal. The guy has tagged some absolute giant animals. It's going to be extremely hard for him to top this buck. Congrats on a buck of many lifetimes! Can't wait to see the video.

14 hours! You stand guys are hardasses! No way I could sit a stand that long when I know I could be glassing coues. If I ever did sit a stand for any long periods of time I'd probably listen to Jay Scott's podcast if anything.

With only 1800-1900 deer tags there's a good chance I won't be getting a tag this year. Over 4000 apps! Dang! I remember back when I started putting in for lefties there would be tags available all the way into October. At least there's still the OTC archery tags to fall back on if need be.

Man this is a tough question to answer because opinions can/will vary from person to person depending on the individuals hunting style. From what you've described it sounds like 12s might go well with your hunting style especially if your looking for more of a minimalist kind of glassing set up. For my hunting style I felt 12x was too much magnification for hand held close glassing but not enough mag for long range and glassing bedded deer. Although initially I loved the 12x I eventually became dissatisfied with that magnification. One of my biggest problems I had with the 12s is I couldn't free hand them steady enough for my liking. If you do a lot of free hand glassing this might be something to think about.

Does anyone know the amount raised from the auction tags vs the raffle tags? Never mind found it.

I agree with pretty much everything yotebuster said above. I've been helping family members on the late Dec hunt there for the past 4 years and it seems that year after year the buck numbers have been on the decline especially the big bucks. I don't mean to get you down just want you to be prepared. Maybe it's just me but IMO as of now hunting on the base is just about as good as hunting on state land maybe a tad better and just like hunting state land you'll really have to work to find a buck over 100. Should still be an great hunt just not as good as it use to be. I'll be on the Fort helping again this year if you run into any trouble finding deer during the hunt shoot me a PM and I might be able to help. Good luck!

Cool looking buck congrats. Thanks for posting and helping pass the time until the result are out. Hopefully a few others will do the same.

Nice hope it works. I got a 9 year old daughter that really wants to know what unit she drew for her first ever deer hunt. She's more excited than I am about the draw results. I'm just waiting for the leftovers.

How's the low light performance with these? A 66mm scope at 30x has an exit pupil of only 2.2mm so far anything lower than 3mm I find to be too dark at first/last light.

Under the right circumstances I'm a big fan of the full frontal shots but I wouldn't consider this shot being a frontal instead it looks like a quartering to you shot. When it comes to elk a quartering to you shot seems like a pretty risky shot imo. After re-watching the video a couple times over it looks as if he hit too high and to the right to hit any major organs. I can't imagine the kid was trying to hit the bull where he did but for all I know maybe he did. When it comes to archery elk all I ever heard was to only to take quartering away or broadside shots so anytime I see otherwise my natural reaction is to cringe. I use to feel this way about the head on shot as well but after seeing first hand how effective it was on multiple occasions I changed my mind. Who knows maybe one day I'll change my mind about the shot in this video but for now I'm not convinced this a shot that hunters should be considering. As far as the questions on ethics without knowing what the kid was thinking at the time of making this shot one can't properly determine whether or not on this shot is ethical. The shot was definitely effective no doubt about that but just because a shot is effective does that mean it's ethical? I hear a lot of guys falsely state that "legal=ethical" if this logic were true than yes this shot would be ethical but in reality this logic is flawed and shouldn't be the basis on how one determines ethics. Ethics are far too complicated to be determined by laws. An action that is ethical for one hunter may not be ethical for another. The way I see it the only person who can truly determine if this was an ethical shot is the kid who took the shot.

Got it. Normally when I hear the term tunnel vision used to describe binos or spotters it is in reference to the optic having a narrow apparent field of view hence my confusion because technically all the 12x50s being discussed should have at least the same or even a slightly wider AFOV when compared to the Minox 15x58. With the Minox having an estimated AFOV advertised at 61.42 degrees while the Cabelas/Meotpa 12x50s estimates are listed just a bit wider with the Cabelas at 62.85 degrees and the Meotpa at 63.08 degrees and lastly the Vortex 12x50 being advertised as the widest at 65.14 degrees. Advertised numbers have been known to be wrong from time to time but if these advertised numbers are in fact correct or even somewhat close a guy would be very hard pressed to notice a difference between all these binos in terms of AFOV. When it comes down to FOV in ft/1000 yards the 12s are listed between 275-285 ft while the Minox 15s are listed at only 215 ft so with the 12s you'll obviously be seeing quite a bit more country at any giving time while viewing through them.

I'm a bit confused with the second part of this post. What are you referring to when you say tunnel visioned?

If saving weight is your main concern then you should be happy with the 12s. I think the difference is just over a pound between your Minox and the 12s your looking at. Pretty good weight savings by going to the 12s. On the other hand if you will be doing majority of your glassing at long distances combined with a lot of slow methodical glassing taking apart every piece of cover you can find then you might be a bit disappointed going from 15x to 12x but I feel this assumption probably applies more to coues than elk IMO. For a deep wilderness elk hunt I think you should be happier with the 12s. Just a guess but some of it might have to do with heat waves. There's times when I feel my lower powered glass appears clearer when compared to my higher powered glass due to the higher powered glass magnifying the atmospheric disturbances more.

Any of guys think this will effect the draw odds at all? I've never put in for the trophy bull hunts because I liked the idea of getting first crack at the big boys. Also by the time the rifle hunts started a lot of the bigger bulls are all busted up. If the G&F decides to put the rifle hunt first I'll be very tempted to hang up the bow and put in for these earlier trophy hunts.

Great idea! Turned out really nice.

I don't know about everyone else but I've never been completely satisfied with our current scoring methods. There are two reasons why I don't fully agree with these methods one reasons is spread. Don't get me wrong I love the look of a nice wide buck but I like a very tall buck just as much or even better. A tall buck can be just as impressive as a wide buck especially from the side but yet when it comes to score these impressive looking tall boys don't get any credit for growing their rack upwards like the wide boys do when growing their rack outward. In my opinion anytime you can have two bucks with the exact same bone mass and tine length score differently just because one grew outward instead of upward then something just isn't quite right with that method of scoring. The other reason I won't ever be able to fully agree the our current antler scoring systems is tine mass has no effect on score. A good example of this is the Titus bull that Candice Hogan shot. If you haven't seen this bull yet do yourself a favor and Google it. The bull has absolutely insane tine mass but under the current scoring systems this incredible tine mass has no effect on score what so ever. Are you kidding me! All that extra bone the bull grew with nothing to show for it score wise but yet he got 30-40 inches for air. It just doesn't sit well with me that this bull didn't get any score for his impressive tine mass. So after testing out numerous different methods I think I found a method that easily fixes these issues I have and I feel that this new method is an improvement over the scoring systems currently being used for elk and deer. Here's how you do it. Score your buck or bull as you normally would but leave out the spread measurement. If you already know the score whether it be B&C, P&Y or SCI just subtract the width measurement from that score. Next measure the smallest circumference located between the base and the mid-point of the tine for all typical points. Lets say your buck has a 10 inch G2 for example. Well we all know half of 10 is 5 so you would measure 5 inches down from the tip of the G2 and this will give you the location of the g2's midpoint. You would then find the smallest circumference located between the midpoint and the base of the G2. This measurement will be the tine mass measurement for the G2. Repeat this process on all the typical points and add them up to get your total tine mass score. A typical 6x6 bull will have 5 tine mass measurements per side, a typical 4x4 muley with eye guards will have 4 tine mass measurement per side and a typical 3x3 coues will have 3 tine mass measurements per side. Once you get your total tine mass score you just simply add it to your previous score minus the spread measurement and your done. It's quite simple really. I don't have very many racks to measure but from the few I've measured there really hasn't been that much difference between the two scores. The racks I've scored using this new method have been a 101 7/8 B&C 3x3 coues that scored 98 4/8 using this new method. A 74 4/8 B&C 3x3 coues that scored 72 6/8 using the new method. A 130 B&C 3x4 muley that scored 129 new method. A 132 7/8 B&C 3x3 muley that scored 126 with the new method. Lastly a 6x6 305 bull that scored 307 1/8 using the new method. Like I mentioned earlier I haven't found much difference between the two methods so far but to be fair I have yet to score a really wide or a really heavy tined rack. This is where I feel the biggest difference will be seen using this new method. I was hoping some of you guys would be willing to take the time and measure some of your current bucks or bulls using this new method and post your results and/or opinions. Especially if you happen to have some really wide or heavy tined racks. I also think this new method will work better for accurately scoring sheds because you don't have to make a guesstimate on the spread. So what do you guys think?

Looks like the people have spoken and given the responses I'd say there is little to no interest in this purposed tine mass method. Oddly enough I think there was more talk on the water displacement method than the method this thread was intended for.

Congrats to your wife on some stud bucks and congrats to you on a stud wife! The mass on that shed is crazy good luck finding him this year.

Just so there's no confusion I'm not suggesting a change in the current scoring systems. This new proposed system is nothing more than another way to score your antlers. If your not a fan of air measurements than why use them? Sure if you happen to shoot a record book animal and you want to enter it into the books then B&C is the way to go. But if your a guy like me that doesn't really care about the record books and your looking for a more complete way to measure just the antlers with no air measurements then this new method might be a better system for you.

I don't recall ever being this interested in seeing how the bucks n bulls racks are going to turn out especially if we get lucky with a storm or two in June and I don't even got an elk tag. Hopefully I can get lucky and pull a strip tag this year.

Title says it all. Crazy good shedding Sneaker! Very cool that the kids got to experience this day with their dad. Might want to take those two little lucky charms out with you come hunting season.

Interesting info about the original SCI scoring system Mr. Quimby. I searched the web but couldn't find and info about the SCI's old way of scoring. Mainly looked for a scoring sheet but no luck. So back in the days of their original scoring system did SCI take a circumference measurement of each individual point?

Becker, I certainly agree that wide bucks are sure awesome to look at as long as the buck is looking directly at you or away from you. Some of the widest bucks I've seen looked nice and big until they turn their head. Same goes for the very tall narrow bucks they can look huge at certain angles and then as soon as they look directly at you they shrink on ya. I still think the width of a buck or bull should fall under personal preference and not into the score of the rack. As far as moose goes I don't know anything about scoring moose. Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Mr. Blaze and here's why. Let say you have two bucks both of which score 120 inches. Buck #1 has 20 inch main beams, 30 inches of mass and is 20 inches wide. Buck #2 also has 20 inch main beams, 30 inches of mass but is only 10 inches wide instead of 20. So that would give Buck #1 30 inches of tine length to reach a total of 120 while Buck #2 will have 40 inches of tine length to achieve a score of 120 inches giving Buck #2 10 more inches of bone over buck #1. Imagine if you will your hiking up through a saddle when out of the corner of your eye you spot bone sticking up out of the grass. Your hearts racing as you run up to see what you've found. As you get closer you can see that it's a matching set and it just happens to be the antlers from Buck #1. As claim your prize you immediately start running the numbers in your head. 20" beams, 5" G1s, 5" G2s, 5" G3s and 30 inches of mass. Heck yea that's a sweet buck bro! But your days not done yet because as soon as you look up there is another set only 10 yards away and as luck would have it this set belongs to Buck#2. As you pick up the sheds you notice they feel just a bit heavier than the set from Buck #1. Once again your heart racing as you go through the numbers in your head. To your surprise all the measurements are coming up the same; 20" beams, 30" of mass, 5" G3s, 5" G2s...., but what's this! As you come to the G1s you about soil your draws because staring you in the face are two of the damnedest looking 10" eye guards you've ever seen. After 5 minutes of admiring both sets on the ground next to each other you pick up one antler from Buck #1 and then an antler from Buck #2. You hold them up side by side and with it's 10" eye guard buck #2 definitely appears to be the bigger of the two bucks. You also confirm that buck #2 is just a bit heavier than Buck #1 due to the extra bone in the 10" G1. So as you can see there actually can be a difference other than personality between a tall buck and a wide buck that score the same.

I've also given the water displacement idea some thought but just couldn't get use to it. I like to be able to score my animals in the field and I don't see how that would be possible with the water displacement scoring. Good questions. Yes you are correct in saying that my new method isn't really any different than the old method. It was designed to be as such and when you think about it being similar is an advantage really. This will make it much easier for hunters to transition over to this new method. Especially when it comes to field judging animals. The main difference is that a rack will get credit for antler only and not air. For me I'm not interested in scoring for the record books. Never have never will. I mainly score for fun and to compare my kills. I'll have to somewhat disagree with you on getting credit for height while using our current scoring systems. I was having a hard time explaining why this is so I drew a picture. Keep in mind I'm no artist so please excuse my drawing but it should give you a general idea as to why I don't like spread being included in the score of an animals rack and to why I feel height isn't given credit with the current system. For the sake of argument lets say the two bucks in the picture below are exactly the same other than width and height. All the points are the same. All the mass measurement are the same. Everything is the same except width and height. But under our current scoring system the wider buck will score more even though both bucks have the same amount of bone. The reason why I don't agree with the idea that a tall buck will get credit for growing a tall rack because he'll get inches from his long tines is because in the bad drawing below both bucks get the same amount of score for the length of their tines. No where in the score does the tall buck get more inches then the wide buck for growing his rack tall. I feel a lot of tall bucks are tall due to the way the main beam/frame grows and not because of very long tines. This is why I don't think spread should be included in score. In my mind the only thing that should be scored is bone. As some have mentioned earlier I also miss the good ol days when you ask someone what they shot and they'd say a 4x4 or 3x3 but I think it's more the overall attitude of the hunters in general I miss rather then if a guy said he shot a 100 incher instead of just saying he shot a 3x3. It was far less competitive back then or at least it seemed that way.

Thanks Edge and murfy.