Age and score test

Post your answers age and score (gross not net)
Tie breaker is inside width.

Location: Carter county Oklahoma

Go....

6.5, 158, 23 wide

5 yo, 20" and low 140s...

5.5 yo, 19.5 inside spread with a gross of 149

5.5 yo, 22" spread, gross 154

22" 151 5.5

Anyone good at aging from teeth?

Just measured him out as well. Will wait
For a few more answers before I give away the results

It isn’t really a super fair test because the pics are crappy, but there is one person close in a “price is right” kind of way

151
5.5
21

5.5
150
22”

6.5
148
24"

5.5
23"
144

4.5
152
22.5"

5yo 21 wide 145

21 3/8 wide

158 Gross

Alright guys, here’s the answers as best I could get them.

I aged the teeth at around 3.5. This was my first set of teeth toange, and simply used a chart put out by QDMA but they lined up Pretty close with the 3.5, but showed a few features of the 4.5 class. Based on the body and the rest of him, I am going to say he was probably 4.5 yo.


His gross score with 12 pts is 160.25
I am not surprised everyone underestimated that. I did too.
Inside spread is 20.5

Tooth aging is always tuff from pictures. In my experience you ignore most of all the teeth except the last cusp in aging. Im sure when properly done tooth aging can be a good tool, but it seems to under estimate age to me. We have taken several known age 4-5 year old deer and people routinely under age them at 2-3 years old.

Wouldn't surprise me if that buck was 4-5 from those teeth, but again it is an Okie deer, never laid eyes on them probably why many were low on the score as he probably weighs a bit more (or use to) than what we are used to looking at.

5.5

151

redchevy, I agree with you. I am kind of brand new to the whole Oklahoma deer thing, but they are bigger up there for sure. I got this property last spring, and hunted it last year with the intent to observe more than shoot, and then this year we are trying to grab some older bucks and some doe. We also have some really inferior bucks we would shoot on sight but they have been absent the last couple weeks as the rut has been progressing. Hopefully they show up.

But ageing up there is a little more difficult due to the increase in body size. From observing many young bucks I have a good idea of what a yearling, 2.5 and 3.5 yo buck look like. It's the older classes that sometimes make me scratch my head. Could this buck have been older, sure. But, based on the body lines, the buck screamed to me a 4.5 yo buck when I saw him on camera for many weeks leading up tot his find. He was not super thick in the shoulders, or rump, but wasn't a 3.5 yo either. SO that's why I am hedging more toward 4.5. It is possible he is 5.5, but nothing with the teeth showed 5.5 yo wear, nothing. I know teeth are not the end all, but they confirmed to me an approx. 4.5 yo buck.

I wish I would have been able to get a weight. He was hollowed out and missing most of the meat from the chest down when we found him. But he was still warm in the shoulders, so I know the kill was from Saturday night.

I will post up a pic of the buck I think may have done him in. He came in to my sons rattling Saturday and if these two got twisted up, the bruiser would have prevailed given the obvious body size difference.

This was the bruiser my son couldn't get a shot off on Saturday. He responded very quickly to rattling so I know he was active Saturday night. Might have been the reason for the buck in question demise??

bruiser on left, deer in question (the one found dead) on the right. I think the size difference is pretty obvious. These pics were taken from the same camera and both deer are approx. the same distance from the camera.

[img]http://[/img]

4.5, 160, 22" wide

What was that you told me about quitting my day job?

You're right, I pulled a Sneaky and errored way on the lower side...

Can you please post up the measurements? I'm not seeing close to that from the pics you posted.

Agree, I can obviously see the mass along the mainbeam and antler spreads but the picture must be really distortive as I don't see a lot of point/tine length throughout.

RMB: 22.5
LMB: 21.5
RG1: 3.5
RG2: 6
RG3: 10
RG4: 8.5
LG1: 2.75 (little bent point before typical brow)
LG2: 3.5
LG3: 6.5
LG4: 11
LG5: 8
LG6: 2.75
RH1: 4.75
RH2: 4.25
RH3: 4
RH4: 4
LH1: 4.5
LH2: 3.75
LH3: 4
LH4: 4
Inside spread 20.5

Mains and spread: 64.5
tines and mass: 95.75
total gross: 160.25

I wasn't trying to be over generous by measuring tines from mid beam or anything, felt this was a very fair score. As I mentioned, it was crappy pics and my son covers the tall tines on both sides with his hands, so those are hard to judge.

TBH though, I was shocked when I added the scores up too. I did not think this deer was a 160 class deer. I double checked and it is. That's why I posted this up, not to brag but to show a deer that looks all day long to be a 130-140 class hid 20-30 inches in there somewhere.

Thanks for posting. I can see now why it didn't make sense to me. I don't see those mass measurements at all in those pics.

It happens. We also don’t even know if anyone around here really knows what they’re doing when they score a deer. I do see mid 150’s on that one, though.