45-7, Pack over the Queens, is that the score you were looking for?

Bowhuntin Said:
Impossible to accurately judge from the picture being at a bad angle. Probably close to that 183 2/8 mark, if you add in the one laying on the bench in the background. Otherwise not going to net too high, lots of deductions. From the picture I'd guess mid 130's net. I don't do the gross thing, it's just, well, gross. It's only 1/2 the measurement and why do anything if you're only going to do it half assed?

Bowhuntin Said:
Impossible to accurately judge from the picture being at a bad angle. Probably close to that 183 2/8 mark, if you add in the one laying on the bench in the background. Otherwise not going to net too high, lots of deductions. From the picture I'd guess mid 130's net. I don't do the gross thing, it's just, well, gross. It's only 1/2 the measurement and why do anything if you're only going to do it half assed?

Bowhuntin Said:
Impossible to accurately judge from the picture being at a bad angle. Probably close to that 183 2/8 mark, if you add in the one laying on the bench in the background. Otherwise not going to net too high, lots of deductions. From the picture I'd guess mid 130's net. I don't do the gross thing, it's just, well, gross. It's only 1/2 the measurement and why do anything if you're only going to do it half assed?

huntorride365 Said:

Bowhuntin Said:
Impossible to accurately judge from the picture being at a bad angle. Probably close to that 183 2/8 mark, if you add in the one laying on the bench in the background. Otherwise not going to net too high, lots of deductions. From the picture I'd guess mid 130's net. I don't do the gross thing, it's just, well, gross. It's only 1/2 the measurement and why do anything if you're only going to do it half assed?

He's a non-typical, why would he net 130? He would be scored as a basic 4x4 or 5x5, can't really tell from the pic. Those differences would be deducted, but the rest of the trash would be added to the net. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Bowhuntin Said:
Yeah, some idea on what I'm talking about. I think I understand how the scoring works and yes it could be scored as a NT. If it were to be scored as a typical then the deductions would subtracted, or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about after all? You do understand there is a "slight" difference in minimum qualifications between NT and typical, don't you? That was my point, kinda.

At any rate, congratulations to the hunter, great deer with any weapon, especially so with a bow! No disrespect meant by me at all, just too much emphasis put on scores imo. Or maybe I'm not entitled to have an opinion?

Bowhuntin Said:
Yeah, some idea on what I'm talking about. I think I understand how the scoring works and yes it could be scored as a NT. If it were to be scored as a typical then the deductions would subtracted, or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about after all? You do understand there is a "slight" difference in minimum qualifications between NT and typical, don't you? That was my point, kinda.

At any rate, congratulations to the hunter, great deer with any weapon, especially so with a bow! No disrespect meant by me at all, just too much emphasis put on scores imo. Or maybe I'm not entitled to have an opinion?