I agree. I always tally the gross score. I don't really care what the net score is even though that is what the record books go for. I just want to know what he grew on top of his head and don't care how symmetrical that he is which is what you get with net. Just my opinion and no one is wrong, however, I always assume that most people who measure and state a score is stating a gross score.I like the gross score because it gives me a much better mental picture of what the deer looks like than a net score. When someone says I killed a 150 inch buck, I always assume that it's a gross score. Your average hunter doesn't care about net scores. A deer that grosses 150 inches and nets 130 and a buck that grosses 130 and nets 130 are not equal in my eyes even though the record books say they are.
I referencing back to headhunter about one of his comments saying he would rather have a 140-150 clean 10 point than the tucker buck. Sorry I should have quoted him in my post.This question don't make sense ! Of course I'd want to kill a world record who wouldn't . But how would it qualify for a world record ? By B&C scoring .
Agree with this assessment, displacement would account for all aspectsIf he grows it it should count. I’ve always wondered why they couldn’t be measured by displacement of a liquid. Measurements givien in ml displaced. It would account for all mass and no air. Only problem is you couldn’t compare to deer scored in the past.
Read this concerning the "Gross Score" .