Guess the score of this typical

[link]

I didn't want to highjack the measure this thread, so I added this one. Even though judging pictures is tough, I like trying to guess scores of mule deer. So have at it.

[link]

Here's another for spread.

[CarbonHunter]

How about you make this multiple choice in 5” increments and give us the answer in a few days?

[Boss .300 winmag]

Tough without some ears.🤣

Is that your Navy boot camp picture?

[link]

Yea, I figured that. I'll let everyone know it's outside spread is just under 27". That's my grandpa's navy picture.

[The scout]

178”

[lewy]

182

[CarbonHunter]

Very nice buck.

[Fidelk]

186 7/8

[boneaddict]

Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs.  Also a little less mass.    Mains are a killer.  Upper 160s to 170ish.   

[jeffro]

Needed 5 more years to be impressive

[Buckhunter24]

Nice rack I voted 170+. I'd be surprised if there's more then 5" difference between this one and the one boneaddict posted. But wtf do I know i don't shoot bucks this big 

[Timberstalker]

173”

[mburrows]

172

[BKMFR]

184

[MLHSN]

169

[chukardogs]

WOW!!! What a cool mount. 184"

[timberhunter]

Let’s go 178 3/8

[meatwhack]

174

[Romulus]

This buck appears heavier and better point length than the photo buck. Smaller beams and inside spread.

[nwwanderer]

A bunch, on a side note, neat wall, thanks!!!

[Ironhead]

168"

[LDennis24]

Little over 180"

[High Climber]

G1s 1”
G2s 16”
G3s 11”
G4s 10”
Mains 21”
Spread 21”
Mass 32”

172”

[huntnphool]

 Low 180’s

[MtnMuley]

He's over 180" any day of the week.

[trophyhunt]

182”  deep forks, beautiful frame!

[greenhead_killer]

172”. I have deer smaller (score wise) than this shoulder mounted ha

[huntnnw]

178

[pianoman9701]

184

[Mtnwalker]

174

[link]

Looks like Fidelk wins. Good job, you were very close.👍

[huntnphool]

Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs.  Also a little less mass.    Mains are a killer.  Upper 160s to 170ish.

 This is clearly bigger than the photo buck.

 YMMV

[teal101]

Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs.  Also a little less mass.    Mains are a killer.  Upper 160s to 170ish.

 This is clearly bigger than the photo buck.

 YMMV

Yup.  Looks to be slightly wider, better mass, looks maybe weaker in the mains.

[boneaddict]

Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs.  Also a little less mass.    Mains are a killer.  Upper 160s to 170ish.

 This is clearly bigger than the photo buck.

 YMMV

Apparently, with those numbers. I must be biased because I was standing next to the live animal versus a skeleton on the wall.   I would never have guessed his backs to be 19 or his mains to be 21.  They look shorter to me. For some reason Although they are similiar I like the other one better.   

[huntnphool]

Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs.  Also a little less mass.    Mains are a killer.  Upper 160s to 170ish.

 This is clearly bigger than the photo buck.

 YMMV

Apparently, with those numbers. I must be biased because I was standing next to the live animal versus a skeleton on the wall.   I would never have guessed his backs to be 19 or his mains to be 21.  They look shorter to me. For some reason Although they are similiar I like the other one better.   

 I have one very similar to this one, that I believe you have seen in a pic, with my daughter holding it, that has even shorter mains than this one (19”) and it still scores over 180” officially.

[OutHouse]

That buck is my dream typical and with the eyeguards I would want as well. Thanks for posting!

[Mtnwalker]

Oof

[The scout]

Oof

  My measurements were off all around from that picture, I figured his backs were about 16” mains were 19” and 4’s were about 8-9”