Unique Bruce/Claw

As far as I know the Claw anchor was unique in boat anchors until introduced to the boating world in about 1973 by the Bruce brand. I know of no anchor that looked anything like the Bruce before that time. Most all earlier anchors were decedents of the Navy, Danforth or Kedge anchors.

And it's interesting to me that most (at least) anchors after the introduction of the Bruce are related to the Bruce and not the anchors that came before it. The Spade, Delta, Rocna, Shark, SARCA, M Supreme and even the XYZ are all descendants of the Bruce. They all have an arm like shank shaped a bit like a hook attached to a single fluke either convex or concave and they all are designed to set on their sides while being dragged across the bottom. A possible exception to setting on it's side function may be the SARCA. But they all have the arm like shank and pointy arrow shaped fluke. All these anchors are direct descendants of the Bruce yet none have the general appearance of the Bruce. Until I analyzed it I thought of the Bruce as unique.

What this means (as I see it) is that anchor design basically threw out all of the past and embraced the new design and it's descendants henceforth to the present time. There basically are no survivors from the old world anchors. Before the Bruce there were basically Kedges and all the others that were related to the navy types (stockless anchors). Along the way weight was reduced, holding power increased, directly proportional to fluke area and the stock was added for stability.

Then the Bruce entered the scene and nothing has been the same since.

The only anchor that dosn't fit into this scenario is the CQR. I think it would be hard to argue that the Bruce was a descendant of the CQR but it DID have a hook like shank and it DID have a single fluke. Hmmmmmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor

I have a CQR and a Danforth on my boat. I did not know what cqr meant until now.

What about the " Box " Anchor ?

dhmeissner,

WOW!

I've got to start using Wikipedia more. I would speak very slowly if I did but perhaps there's merit to looking at Wikipedia always before opening mouth ... or pecking a keyboard.

Wonderful resource. Going back to read Wikipedia Anchors.

I'm amazed. Wikipedia says the Kedge (they call it an Admiralty Anchor) has more holding power than Navy types that they call "stockless" anchors. I hadn't heard the expression "Admiralty" anchor. "Stockless" of course includes many similar anchors to Dreadnought and "Navy" anchors.

I personally DON"T BELIEVE Wikipedia on the holding power of "Stockless" anchors being less than Kedge or Fisherman anchors. At least in a typical sand/mud bottom.

Carrying both Bruce and CQR is frequently seen here on 40-foot-plus-long boats

manyboats said:

dhmeissner,

WOW!

I've got to start using Wikipedia more. I would speak very slowly if I did but perhaps there's merit to looking at Wikipedia always before opening mouth ... or pecking a keyboard.

Wonderful resource. Going back to read Wikipedia Anchors.

I'm amazed. Wikipedia says the Kedge (they call it an Admiralty Anchor) has more holding power than Navy types that they call "stockless" anchors. I hadn't heard the expression "Admiralty" anchor. "Stockless" of course includes many similar anchors to Dreadnought and "Navy" anchors.

I personally DON"T BELIEVE Wikipedia on the holding power of "Stockless" anchors being less than Kedge or Fisherman anchors. At least in a typical sand/mud bottom.

Click to expand...

I always take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but it's usually a good place to start. With anchors it's always about the bottom I think.

Stopped off at a guys yard last weekend who had a big anchor on display. Turned out to be a stern anchor to kedge LSTs back off the beach. It was indeed, a giant Danforth SAY 8' long and I'd guesstimate a bit over a ton. And no, it wasn't for sale.

Yes, I know this has nothing to do with claws. So for the sake of thread relativity, I can say that I do have a genuine Bruce on my bow.

Like this one?

Yup.

Where's Marin when you need him? This was his favorite topic!

The landing craft's kedging Danforth has weird palms. I've seen it before and don't understand it at all. Most are shaped so as to make the aft end of the anchor rise up to orient the flukes to dig in. But this one (and I've seen others) look like to they are designed to dig in and not particularly to cause the aft end of the anchor to rise at all.
Anybody have any ideas?


Mark,
I think the CQR is found more on sailboats for the same reason most Claws are found on powerboats ...... fits on the bow nicely. That feature needs to be given it's due credit. It's easy to put a bigger Claw on one's bow and as long as it's a "decent" anchor many or possibly even most will go for it. The best anchor dosn't just appear on one's bow ..... it is chosen by the skipper. CQRs and Claws fit easily on the bows of sailboats .. one on each side of the forestay. But Mark I think it's an odd choice on that sailboat in that both anchors do poorly in mud and mud bottoms are so very common. There may be nothing else in the Delta.

Where's Marin? Dusting off that thingy propping open his garage door?

Gig,
I offered to buy it a long time ago but he wanted to make a statement about how bad Bruce anchors were. So I bought a 22 lb Claw myself and it has worked fine but not in any blow. I may yet get a bigger Claw someday but I have plenty of anchors as it is.

The Bruce works well in the California Delta and SF Bay. Much of the "mud" we have here is poorly hydrated making it very firm and indurated: unlike hydrated mud which is soluble with poor holding. Also, the local mud has a fair amount of silt and v fine grain sand in the matrix which gives the Bruce a bit more to hold on to. I have had our Bruce set so deep that I had to work at it for an hour or more to break it free.

The Bruce was developed to secure oil and gas rigs in the North Sea. A tug would deploy anchors with weights of many tons, sometimes setting three per corner and one or two mid ships of the rig. Once dropped the tug would use its power to set. Once set they were never recovered.
Yes the Bruce is a fine anchor but should never be used in on a Stoney bottom. I have witnessed boats dragging with Bruce and when the anchor was recovered the throat was full of a rock.
My favourite all round anchor is a trusty Northill, and it like the dean forth was developed for anchoring aircraft. Bill

Looks to me like you are trying to get post 10,000 out of someone..

Photo says it all....

Not at all. Actually on this thread I'm glad he's not here. His input re the Bruce would not be a positive force. No .. Certainly disruptive. In fact I waited for him to leave before starting this thread knowing he'd be all over it w negative bias. Marin's great but I don't want him here.

A point about the Claw. Most anchors have a shank that is angled down to the fluke such that the shank is at an angle of attack that causes the shank to ride up to some degree impeding the anchors progress down into the bottom where it belongs. The Claw however has a shank that is basically vertical causing drag that the boat easily overcomes but no resistance to penetration occurs until the bottom is up to the horizontal part of the shank. By that time the fluke is 6 to 8" submerged below the bottom surface. This may be one of the reasons the Claws have such a good rep for setting fast. I consider it a great advantage for the design.

Here's a bookend shot to go with Mike's. Love my claw!! It self-deploys flawlessly from the self-deploying bow roller and always returns right-side up. It's never failed me and I anchor alot, but next time I'll buy the 20kg model.

Eric, I think the Bruce begat all of the concave designs and the CQR Plow begat all of the convex designs.

"What this means (as I see it) is that anchor design basically threw out all of the past and embraced the new design and it's descendants henceforth to the present time."

The Danforth is not related to either the Bruce or CQR Plow but it is still a popular design.

manyboats said:

Mark,
I think the CQR is found more on sailboats for the same reason most Claws are found on powerboats ...... fits on the bow nicely. ...

Click to expand...

Ray's (Giggitoni's) GB42 sports both CQR and Bruce on the bow: it's not just a sailboat thing.

markpierce said:

Ray's (Giggitoni's) GB42 sports both CQR and Bruce on the bow: it's not just a sailboat thing.

Click to expand...

Uh oh Ray. That cat is outta the bag now. Let the record show I was not the one to tell anybody.

I am glad this thread got started. We went through the Locks Saturday morning and were behind a huge tug. I took this picture just because I had never seen two anchor on the stern of a tug before (there was one on each stern corner). Now I have a place to post it! Big anchors, the shank is about 7-8 feet!

CPseudonym said:

Uh oh Ray. That cat is outta the bag now. Let the record show I was not the one to tell anybody.

Click to expand...

At least it's a real Bruce!

"A real Bruce?"

I've always thought one or two Claws quite likely are better than the original Bruce. If we had stuck w the original car or airplane we'd be way in the past. The assumption that nothing will ever be better than the original Claw is very short sighted in my opinion. The Bruce was forged as pointed out by Spy but I've seen quite a few Claws bent a lot so I know thFey aren't brittle but then one can ask "were they bent from great force or were they weak. I'd guess great force as all the bent one's I've seen were on fish boats.

I have noticed many Claws have longer and more slender flukes but most have short and fat stubs for flukes. All have twist in the outbd flukes and I have some ideas about that twist but want other opinions on the twist. I thought it was one thing and then decided it was another. What?????

I've not noticed any real difference in shanks except there is slight differences in the height of the vertical part and the angle of the arm and it's attachment angle to the fluke. Actually I think it's not the shank angles that matter but the angle of the rode attach point to the center of surface area of the flukes that's important.

Who has a Claw w longer skinnier flukes? I'd like to know what brand/brands make a Claw that way or w more or less twist in the outbd flukes.

Anybody notice any other differences in Claw type anchors?

manyboats said:

Anybody notice any other differences in Claw type anchors?

Click to expand...

20 kg Force

Mine's a Lewmar Claw.

Mine's most likely a Chinese knock-off; definitely not original Bruce.

SeaHorse II said:

20 kg Force

Click to expand...

And blinding, shiny stainless steel.

Our is the real McCoy...

Look at Mike's Bruce and see that the shank slants actually backwards from the fluke whereas w most all other anchors the shank slants fwd so the mud and sand tends to lift the anchor up and out of the bottom. Of course the fluke overpowers the rising shank so it dosn't rise at all on anchors like the Rocna and Delta but the rising force reduces the tendency for the fluke to bury itself. Once the shanks are buried the Claws shank will resist burying further but not nearly as much as w most anchors.

What an anchor does is the sum of the forces involved.