Old Warrior of a Deer Goes Down

[Telemark]

What is the formula for mass? The mass formula is given as Mass = ρ × v, where ρ = density and v = volume. Weighing something wouldn’t tell you it’s mass.

Weighing something on Earth will give you it's mass. In Europe they use grams for the mass of the antlers.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Total mass would be great but how do you know without disconnecting from the skull?

I like the idea of measuring by volume. Might need some specialty tools to measure but would be a cool way to look at it IMO.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

Total mass would be great but how do you know without disconnecting from the skull?

I like the idea of measuring by volume. Might need some specialty tools to measure but would be a cool way to look at it IMO.

I've had this same thought. If you had an accurate enough but also large enough container, you could do it by displacement of water by dipping the skull upside down. Another way would be to entirely fill a container with water. Carefully add the antlers upside down until you get to the bases. Then, pull the antlers out, re-add the water the brim again from a volumetric container. The amount to add again would be the volume of antlers.

 

[BenA]

Total mass would be great but how do you know without disconnecting from the skull?

I like the idea of measuring by volume. Might need some specialty tools to measure but would be a cool way to look at it IMO.

There are 3D scanning apps for your phone to measure volume. I don’t know how accurate they are, but we're probably getting pretty close to being able to do that accurately.

 

[SwampCat]

There are 3D scanning apps for your phone to measure volume. I don’t know how accurate they are, but we're probably getting pretty close to being able to do that accurately.

I bet they can do it now. If they can scan and antler and 3d print it, they can probably tell the volume of 3d print material used

 

[BenA]

I bet they can do it now. If they can scan and antler and 3d print it, they can probably tell the volume of 3d print material used

Yeah. There are precise reproductions you can get. I meant with your phone. It would be pretty cool to have a scoring system for volume that you could do out in the field as soon as you shot it.

 

[KY wild]

EUREKA! I like the concept and it could be an easy cheap over flow container made large enough for any antlers. Container just need overflow spout. Extremely accurate comparison. It would do away with the inside spread counting but probably be better but be easy to add it if you wanted. It seems a phone app would need numerous angles, like all angles probably still be possible.

 

[Turkish]

Not to nitpick, but those are volume measurements, not mass. And they are only taken at certain points. A mass measurement would need to weigh the whole thing.

Is some whitetail antler denser than others?

 

[Turkish]

While B&C and P&Y take four circumference mass measurements on each antler - I dont believe that does a set of antlers justice. There is another measuring system - called full credit scoring system that

I agree - the first pic is my largest deer - 158 4/8. It has long tines, little mass. The second pic is my son’s best deer - 160” - shorter tines and a lot more mass. Alberta deer. It carries its mass out to the end of the tines. To me, my son’s deer is the more impressive looking set of antlers
View attachment 71802
View attachment 71803

For gross or non-typical, I’ve always thought the best method is to submerge in a full bucket of water and measure the overflow… true volume measurement. With that said, I’ve also liked the traditional B&C typical scoring standard. Call me old fashioned, but I appreciate symmetry more than most.

 

[Telemark]

Total mass would be great but how do you know without disconnecting from the skull?

I like the idea of measuring by volume. Might need some specialty tools to measure but would be a cool way to look at it IMO.

They weigh the whole thing with the skull.

 

[Telemark]

Is some whitetail antler denser than others?

I believe so. It's certainly the case with red deer.

 

[Mortenson]

While not perfect, I still like the B&C system also. I never understood the dislike for inside spread. Absolutely should be counted. Makes a deer look bigger. B&C made some needed changes to typical tine configurations in recent years. Old records are "messy" now because of it. Is what it is. Yes, deer with thick tines don't stand to gain anything vs skinny tines. But it a roundabout way they probably are getting more inches from the thicker H measurements on the beams. Too bad B&C didn't have 1 more credit in their scoring, such as weight of the rack, which would reward dense racks and racks with thick tines.

 

[Telemark]

Too bad B&C didn't have 1 more credit in their scoring, such as weight of the rack, which would reward dense racks and racks with thick tines.

Even if it's just recorded for reference and doesn't count towards the score, it would be a good idea to keep track of mass.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

While not perfect, I still like the B&C system also. I never understood the dislike for inside spread. Absolutely should be counted. Makes a deer look bigger. B&C made some needed changes to typical tine configurations in recent years. Old records are "messy" now because of it. Is what it is. Yes, deer with thick tines don't stand to gain anything vs skinny tines. But it a roundabout way they probably are getting more inches from the thicker H measurements on the beams. Too bad B&C didn't have 1 more credit in their scoring, such as weight of the rack, which would reward dense racks and racks with thick tines.

I can understand dislike for inside spread. You already have main beam length measured so length of bone is factored and you're just rewarding a certain antler shape more than how much bone grew.

Maybe i'm biased because i never shoot wide racked critters.. Especially with elk where it can vary a quite a bit. Really just feels like you're rewarding an animal for which direction the main beams sweep.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

They weigh the whole thing with the skull.

Everyone cleans the skull the same? I guess the skull is typically pretty light compared to a nice set of antlers.

 

[Mortenson]

I can understand dislike for inside spread. You already have main beam length measured so length of bone is factored and you're just rewarding a certain antler shape more than how much bone grew.

Maybe i'm biased because i never shoot wide racked critters.. Especially with elk where it can vary a quite a bit. Really just feels like you're rewarding an animal for which direction the main beams sweep.

I see your point, but deer with narrow spreads can have very long beams and deer with very wide racks can have short main beams. All else being equal, if a wide buck is standing next to a narrow buck, everyone is shooting the wide one.

 

[KY wild]

The inside spread seems like a big number because it moves a 130 to 150 but in reality a 20 inch spread looks much larger to me than the same deer that is 16 inches but only increases the score by 4 inches. So I definitely think it should be included because important to looks of deer and only affect score a relative small amount.

 

[Mortenson]

^^ well stated

 

[Telemark]

Everyone cleans the skull the same? I guess the skull is typically pretty light compared to a nice set of antlers.

I assume there is a standard. But their classifications are different than the US methods. There are only three classes(bronze, silver, gold), and the deer either falls into one of them or doesn't. My avatar image is the gold medallion from the Norwegian Hunting and Fishing Federation. You would receive the scoring form along with the medallion.