>Which would be the better of the two CQR or Bruce? Every anchoring situation will be different so it's impossible to say a particular anchor will work with no problems every time in such-and-such a bottom. The Bruce's claim to fame is that it sets fast in a variety of bottoms including sand, average mud, weedy bottoms, gravelly bottoms, and rocky bottoms. And if it comes out due to veering of the boat, it supposedly sets again very quickly. This is why they are, along with the CQR, the most popular anchor in the Pacific Northwest. BUT...... in virtually every anchoring test I have read the Bruce is always at or near the bottom in terms of holding power and there is quite a gap in terms of holding power between it and the next anchor higher on the list. And if they're put under a lot of strain, Bruces have a nasty habit of pulling out, skipping, resetting, pulling out, skipping, resetting, etc. This tendency is illustrated rather disturbingly in the video on the Rocna website. I don't know much about CQRs except that they, too, are supposed to set in a wide variety of bottoms. They are generally rated higher than the Bruce in terms of holding power (assuming the same weight of anchors). On the other hand, a plow blade is designed to move forward through the earth. Even though the CQR has opposing blades to resist this movement, it's still a wedge aimed in the direction you don't want it to move. Based on our own eight-year experience with a Bruce I'm not particularly impressed with it. So if I had to choose between a Bruce and a CQR today I would probably choose the CQR just because the Bruce's weaknesses are a known to us now, so I'd be interested in trying something different. Most of the sailboats in our marina that I know are cruised and anchored a lot have CQRs. Bruces tend to be more popular with the powerboat crowd. Perhaps because they stow better on the typical powerboat pulpit? I don't know. But if I was planning a trip to somewhere I hadn't been before and was planning to anchor a lot I'd try to find out what sort of anchors were the most effective in the areas I was going to visit. Often local conditions can make what normally would be an ideal anchor not so effective. I understand that in some areas along the east coast you can get mud that has a very hard crust on the top. A Bruce might normally set well in mud, but it's rather dull-edged flukes may not be able to penetrate the crust. So you need something with sharper flukes and a lot of weight behind them to punch down through to the softer mud underneath. ______________________________ C. Marin Faure GB36-403 "La Perouse" Bellingham, Washington

I am with Marin on this one. We went North for three months and I have to say that the Claw (a Bruce knock-off) was frequently a problem, most often in weed. I think there is very good reason for the popularity in the PNW for the CQR. We also had a Fortress on the pulpit and I would not go without it. It was so versatile in being able to pick it up and drop it over the stern or as a second anchor over the bow or whatever. No chain, just rope. My windlass is set up to run two anchors which we did several times, as well as use it as a trap-puller. I am looking to replace my Claw and will look closely at the Rocna. The CQR has too long of a shank for my pulpit. Richard