The average body depth on a mule deer is about 18 inches.

Does anyone know what the average body depth is on an elk?

Thanks

All the ones I've shot and walked up to looked to measure about four feet from tummy to back , but the old rangefinding reticles on Redfield scopes (Accu-Range) were based on 24" for an average elk.

I think 48" may be stretching it.
I think you need to knock a foot off of that.

I have measured the body depth on three big bulls from various parts of the country in the last couple of years, and each one measured 28" from the top to the bottom of the hair right behind the shoulder.

Mule Deer,

Thanks just what I needed!

Ya think? Maybe two feet, huh? I read once that spikes will go around 22", and average mature bulls go around 24", like Redfield used in their scopes for elk bracketing. Leupold also uses 24", or did a few years ago, for elk bracketing. So did Premier Reticles use 24".
A 28" bull would be a big one, as was stated.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement about "four feet". My bad.

By the way...most sights agree with 36" as this one does.

http://www.mildot.com/testdrive.htm

Here is another good site. This one says and average of 34.65"


http://www.bowhunting.net/NAspecies/elk2.html

I have a 375" and a 340" bull mounted. The back of their forms measure 32" and 31". A live bull would be a few inches deeper behind the front leg, so I'd think 36" would be a good ball park number.

Ok, (given correct windage and a 32 inch torso) therefore if my .338 is zero at 200 yards my 225 grain bullet will drop 8 inches at 300 yards. So if I aim dead center I will most likely have a heart shot. And even at 400 yards I don't want to aim any higher than the top of back.

Never shot an elk past 325 yards and most have been less than 100 yards:-)=

Good info.

For the average elk, 24 is about right. Really big bulls though might make it up to around 30 inches.

That four foot measurement refers to how big some of them LOOK to be when I first walk up to them, and my eyes are bigger...then I calm down and they shrink. I'm still like a little kid when it comes to shooting elk...I still get pretty hepped up.

Click on torso height.
http://bowsite.com/BOWSITE/features/articles/elk/fieldjudging/

30".

Click on "ground to shoulder" and subtract the torso height. You have a nice big bull with 12 to 18" legs. I don't think they could run as fast as they do if that were the case.

Reba,

The only muley I killed measured 19". It was a three popint. I killed four Rosevelt cow elk. All four measured right at 28". For your information, the Rosevelt elk are slightly larger than the Rocky Mountain elk.

I believe the chest height in this link in the skeletal system portion of it refers to height from the ground. The average shoulder height is listed as 59". 59 - 34.65 = 24.35" chest depth.
5 feet or a little under shoulder height is about right for the bulls I have seen killed (around half a dozen), and I know their legs are longer than their chest depth. They would indeed look kinda funny it it was the other way around!

I sure would like to see one of those elk that are 36" through the chest someday. The three bulls I measured in the past couple of years were from New Mexico and Montana scored between 325 and 350. As I noted earlier these measured 28" from the top of the shoulders to the bottom of the chest as they lay on the ground, including hair.

A young 6x6 (maybe 4 years old) from British Columbia measured 26", and a raghorn taken about 3 years ago measured 23". The last spike my wife killed measured 20".

I measure the chest depth on every animal I can. The only animals I've seen that measured 36" from top to bottom of the chest were bison, Cape buffalo and Alaskan moose. A British Columbia bull moose (close to B&C antlers) measured 32", and a more eating-size Alberta bull (still an over-40" spread) measured not quite 30".

After visiting this thread for several days, I culled my field notes and, FWIW, this is what I had recorded for animals that I measured:

4x4 (western Colorado): 24"
5x5 (southern New Mexico): 24"
5x5 (north-central Idaho): 26"
6x5 (southern New Mexico): 26"
6x6 " " " : 27"
6x6s (western Colorado): 28", 28", 28", 28", 30" (the latter the largest-bodied elk that has been taken on the ranch that I have hunted for the last 15 years)
6x7 (western Colorado, 360 B&C): 28"
7x7 (central New Mexico 370+ B&C): 28"

I did not kill all of these, but measured all of them in the field prior to field dressing.

Obviously, that fits right in with my measurements. I have only seen one elk that might have measured 30" from top to bottom of the hairline at the shoulders, but he fell in such an awkward position in a sort of trough in the ground that we had to take him apart without a real good measurement.

I suspect what is going on with some of these 36" elk is that rhe measurement is being taken around the curve of the body, instead of with the tape held in a straight line. This measurement, of course, is not wheat we see from the side--and therefore doesn't work all that well for range estimation.

Thanks for your additional data.

Mule Deer; 32" is the biggest I've seen but HE was measured over the curves, as you mentioned. We need to the'em like Tigers in the old days..." between pegs" or "over the curves". But for range estimation with duplex crosshairs etc. "between the pegs " would be the only way....

I knew I'd forgotten someone: Shepherd Scopes also use 24" circles for their "elk" scopes.

ingwe,

A good way to put it! Maybe we should call it "Corbett" measurement....

What the hail! your advice on this and range estimation w/duplex has served me well over the years..lets call it " Barsness " measurement....
Ingwe

That's a very nice suggestion--but probably more people can pronounce Corbett.

mudhen's twelve elk adveraged 27 inches.

A few days ago I posted a reply to this question with measurements from my elk mounts. Modern taxidermy use foam forms that are anotomically correct down to the details of facial blood vessels. I've been elk hunting for almost 40 years, and have shot 33 elk, including 23 that were 5-pt (one side) or better. I mounted two of my biggest 6-pt bulls. According to some of the posts here I must have two of the biggest elk in the world, but I don't think so. I think the elk that I have mounted are just good mature bulls.

The withers or hump is usually the highest point on most big game animals, and the chest right behind the front leg or the belly is the lowest point. Taxidermy shoulder mounts usually include some, if not all of the withers or hump, and the brisket in front of the front legs. Depending on the animal, the bottom of the brisket in front of the front legs is several inches higher than the bottom of the chest or belly behind the front legs.

This thread asked for the average body depth of elk. Answers have ranged from 24" to 4 feet. There have also been some posts on some other animals such as Buffalo and Moose. Since I have shoulder mounts of most of these animals, I took some pictures today of these mounts next to a 36" yardstick. These pictures show the depth of the animals in front of the front legs. I also took accurate measurements of that depth on these mounts.

This first picture shows how the depth of a mature bull elk is greatest behind the front legs.

Picture of a 6-pt bull elk mount next to a 36" yardstick. Marker on yardstick at 32 1/2".

Several of my mounts with the 36" yardstick next to another 6-pt elk that measured a depth of 31 1/2". The Shiras moose on the right has a antler spread of 40" and a shoulder depth of 33". The shiras moose on the left has 49" antlers and shoulder depth of 36".

My American Buffalo shown next to the yardstick has a shoulder depth of 46".

My Cape Buffalo, also next to the yardstick, has a shoulder depth of 32".

Since the greatest body depth of these animals is more behind the front legs than it is at the front of the brisket, which I measured on the mounts, I would add 2-6" to my measurements to get the actual live body depth of them. Cows, young bulls, and calves would be from several inches to over a foot less than the depth of mature bulls.

Nice wall!

My measurements are from newly-dead animals, from the top of the shoulder down to the bottom of the chest behind the leg. This is not taken at an angle, but "between the pegs," as ingwe put it. In other words, I am not tilting the tape from the highest point of the shoulder backward to behind the leg, but making a measurement at 90 degrees to the main line of the body.

This is the most consistent measurement we see when using the reticle as a rangefinder (the point of this post), partly because we can almost always get a look at that depth, even if the animal is quartering away. Also, some animals have more hair at the front of the chest, or even skin. That's why I measure them the way I do.

That's also one reason I don't get chest measurements off mounted animals: Shoulder mounts do not usually include the back of the shoulder. Also I have measured the same animal both in the field and after it was mounted, and the two measurements do not always agree. In every instance the mount has been larger than it was in real life (or real death). I suspect this is because taxidermists, like most humans, tend to stretch things.

Mule Deer I have also found this to be invariably true- bless those taxidermists for reversing ground shrink... now if they could only do something about antler spreads contracting a skosh...
Ingwe

I have heard that epoxy and fiberglass can work wonders.

Yea, it's the latest craze, and I've heard that all of the best taxidermists are doing it. Instead of matching the cape to one of the new foam forms that have been sculped to the exact measurements of the animals, get the biggest form available then add some more foam to it to give it that swollen, puffy look. And especially with horned and antlered animals, it's the body size that's important. Besides, you've told all your buddies that your guide estimated the weight of your 5-pt bull elk at over 1000 pounds, or that your 6-pt (eastern count) whitetail was at least 400 pounds. And your mount has to match your story, right?

A friend of mine gave me some spectacular muledeer antlers. They were almost six inches around the bases and massive clear out to the ends. Since I wanted the most look for the living room I did the epoxy routine and covered the bone with leather. They measured 30" when I received them but on the wall they measured 34". That was as wide as I could go and still have them look natural.

Here is one that might have made or slightly broke 30" withers ~ brisket. He was a huge elk, just not over-antlered. The problim with measuring one dead on the ground is two fold.
Allowing for the curvature of the rib cage and eye-balling is just a step up from guess-your-best.

Second problem I see, is just a thought?
How much deflection of the rib cage is there when the elk is dead weight on the ground?
Live bone deflects, flatten an oval from the width and it adds to the hight.




First Bud at this kill site was the owner of Alpine Taxadermy. We did measure him before the front got moved. But he did say that the foam shoulders from the Taxidermy supply store are exaggerate.

Field ranging is as much an instinctive feel as it is a science. Taking 30" for the breadbasket of a huge bull or 18" for a nice northern buck is fairly quick/easy math.

Spending some time afield with unsuspecting examples, then pacing is off might surprise you. Having some idea in your head at to what to expect might pay off?



A little practicing trick I like, is when hiking and I pass a tree that is a near perfect 12" accross, put the scope on it at distance. Same trick works on my elk brisket sized tires on my truck at destance.

The most accurate assessment of size is the 1st thing you say after you look at the dead elk and then think about where you are at the time. The assessment ranges from 'no sweat' to 'oh fxxk!!'

How 'bout ranging the animal before it leaves?

Like Buffy and Mule Deer Ive found 31" to be a big one, and I used that measurement a number of times ranging with the reticle a la the Mule Deer Method...

They are no longer unsuspecting examples when you start shooting at them, they suspect something is up!

A deceased elk suspects nothing.

And an assertive assumption the estamated range was accurate!

for sure. The smaller vertical body depth is 36 inches, and the smaller total body height is 48 inches which leaves the bull actually, with legs 14 in. long below the body.

Angel of the dangle.

That's a very good thing Eyeball,

That's all the prof we need, 14" legs, we can catch them on foot!

Good to know!