385"?? Really?

[Bean Counter]

Do you see 385" here? 

[270Shooter]

Pretty long tines, very few deductions, and what looks like pretty long beams. And lots of points so yeah it's probably pretty close.

[kentrek]

More like 380 

It has smaller thirds but the main beams an width like they could add up fast

After 350 seems like they all look alike anyhow.... big !

[JPhelps]

Long beams and 7 points per side. I see it.

[rtspring]

All day long

[bowhunterforever]

Looks big to me

[Bean Counter]

Wow, I suck at field judging. 

But if that's 385", I may have a shot at 400" this fall.

[mtman]

I see 385 on the sign to the lower right.

[jackelope]

Most people, myself included couldn't confidently tell the difference between a 385 bull and a 400 bull.
With that said, like what was said before. Long main beams and extra points.
.02

[jdb]

I don't see it

[kentrek]

Most people, myself included couldn't confidently tell the difference between a 385 bull and a 400 bull.

  

[Pathfinder101]

The skull is making the rack look small.  If that is a huge old bull with an enormous skull, then I can see him in the 380s.   

[KFhunter]

You just need a dude with long skinny arms to hold it and it'd be 400+

[vandeman17]

I see it. I bet if you put it on a live animal for reference it would be more obvious. 

[jackelope]

That bull has good tine length, long main beams and all sorts of extra points up top. With all that added together, it's not a problem to see 385".  He's like a 9x9 or something.

[Bean Counter]

Most people, myself included couldn't confidently tell the difference between a 385 bull and a 400 bull.

  

Would it be equally difficult to judge 370" from 385"? Same math of +/-15". I've looked at a lot of 360-370" that were killed last year and they just seemed so much bigger. I didn't think that a euro would change perspective so much.

[jackelope]

Yes. I'd say so. It would be for me.
I think I could confidently differentiate between a 350 bull and a 380 bull but I think if you put a 380 7x7 then a 400 7x7 I couldn't tell the difference. I consider myself average at best at judging bulls' scores. Maybe I'm wrong.

[6x6in6]

I could see it.
Little short on the 3rds but the extra junk up top and the crazy long mains would easily off set those 3rds.

[Todd_ID]

I'm not seeing too short of thirds, only a funky angle.  If the 1's and 2's are in the 18" range, then the 3's are only a couple less than them.  What makes this bull special is the 5's being crazy long and the 7, 8, and 9 points don't hurt much either.    I can see 385 on that bull without needing any tape stretch.

[Dan-o]

I don't doubt that's an accurate measure.

[Bean Counter]

If it were my season now, I would have waited until the last day of the season to shoot this one, thinking he's a 330" ish.  if you could tell me know that I'd have a 385" bull down at the end of the season I'd be tickled, but this one doesn't really catch my eye. OTOH here's another Arizona elk from last year, that I would have shot opening day. I was told this bull scores about 360".

I guess I need to get a lot better at field judging. Or I just need to kill an elk I like the looks of rather than concerning myself with tape measures.

[huntnnw]

when you start with great fronts good 3rds and nice 4ths with big whale tails you got a good bull!!

[kentrek]

 Or I just need to kill an elk I like the looks of rather than concerning myself with tape measures.

  score means very little....

[Elknut1]

At first glance no. But many times photos just don't do them justice, need better photos.

  ElKNut1

[Jellymon]

I don't trust "official scorers" measurements. When I shot my big Roosevelt in 2010 my taxi had a scorer from the books come in and measure it. He ended up with 299 7/8". When I got there he told me that he could make it over 300" if I wanted.
The scores in those books now mean nothing to me.