Ive got an old 20lb CQR anchor. Its never been easy to set. Ive decided to replace it next season. Ive narrowed my choices down to either a delta or bruce anchor. I think 15 lbs should be about right for my P26W at about 5000lbs displacement I would appreciate hearing from anybody with experience on either anchor
Anchors: Opinions requested
- Thread starter bffatcat
- Start date
- Status
Bruce anchors are no longer made but knock offs are. Personally if those were my only choices I take a claw but only if up one size from the recommendation. A 22lb claw would be a good anchor for a P-26 but there are still better choices IMHO.
You may want to consider a Manson Supreme 15. I would take a 15lb Manson Supreme over a Delta or Claw 22 lb every day of the week and considering that I've owned all three (actually I owned a real Bruce's not knock offs) I can say this with actual experience..
I have many year's experience with a Bruce and like it very much. I have since switched to an undersized Mansen Supreme(Maine Sail) which will be replaced this year with the proper size Mansen or Rocna.
The Bruce sets easily and it only broke loose once and reset within 30 ft. This was a 180° wind change in the middle of the night with speeds over 20 kts. All of my experience with the bruce was in mud or mud/grass.
I am not sure of the weight but I would be willing to sell it if you are interested. We are fairly close so shipping should not be much. PM me if you like and I will check the weight tonight.
The Bruce sets easily and it only broke loose once and reset within 30 ft. This was a 180° wind change in the middle of the night with speeds over 20 kts. All of my experience with the bruce was in mud or mud/grass.
I am not sure of the weight but I would be willing to sell it if you are interested. We are fairly close so shipping should not be much. PM me if you like and I will check the weight tonight.
I certainly agree with you guys about the Bruce. The PO bought a big one to replace the little one that came in the Hunter as OEM. I use the little one as a lunch hook or as a double or stern when necessary. In our mud/clay/sand, the Bruce has not failed.. That includes, like Tim said, when the wind shifted 180 and piped up to 25-30.. The anchor alarms went off and she stopped drawing the trail to the now lee shore after about 50 feet of re-setting.. WHEW.. .
We've used them all
Danforth - completely untrustworthy after later experiences with other anchors; won't reset on current changes too well
Bruce - very good holding; moved up in size to a newer style; not being made any more; beware of knock offs
Rocna - great new anchor; this and the Manson Supreme are the ONLY ones you should consider
See Maine Sail's anchor writeup on his website
Buy a Rocna or Manson and sleep well!
BTW, another thread today about anchors had this link to Maine Sail's info: http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?p=597768#post597768
Also see: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,2705.0.html
Danforth - completely untrustworthy after later experiences with other anchors; won't reset on current changes too well
Bruce - very good holding; moved up in size to a newer style; not being made any more; beware of knock offs
Rocna - great new anchor; this and the Manson Supreme are the ONLY ones you should consider
See Maine Sail's anchor writeup on his website
Buy a Rocna or Manson and sleep well!
BTW, another thread today about anchors had this link to Maine Sail's info: http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?p=597768#post597768
Also see: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,2705.0.html
I've used a claw for many anchored nights and it works quite well, most of the time. It sets fast and resets fast, most of the time. Unfortunately it has let me down once too often and I'm sick of it. It sets for crap in hard, rocky, grassy conditions which we have a lot of here in Maine (contrary to the belief it's all mud everywhere). There is nothing more annoying than dragging your anchor around trying to set it, hauling it back on board and trying again, etc. etc. until finally you just concede to an aggressive anchor watch schedule.
Next year I'm buying a Manson supreme, the working man's Rocna. I've never heard a single bad thing about them.
Next year I'm buying a Manson supreme, the working man's Rocna. I've never heard a single bad thing about them.
I have been reading these anchor discussions for quite a while now and these are my conclusions: The latest generation of anchors are superior to the anchors of the past that were once the standards. To even come close to the Rocna, or Manson moving up a couple of sizes for CQR and Bruce would be prudent. There comes a point when the weight of the anchor and the chain become ridiculous and a move to the modern is in order.
If you have grass, get a Bulwagga. It's what the maker made it for. The designer is a sailor who owns a manufacturing company. He got tired of nothing working in grass so he made his own. He doesn't try to make money off it, he just makes a few when people want one. It's known best in the lakes where they have a lot of grass.
I use it in soft mud and love it. I swear it has to be the best anchor in the world and will work in any conditions.
Sort of depends
Your location and the type of bottom your anchor has to hold in should be the backbone of your decision. I know the new style and new technology anchors claim to be good all round anchors. Not real sure I agree with that. I still use an old Danforth, and have no problems. Have never had it drag, it always sets easy and holds fine. BUT My sailing area is very good holding bottom, with grass or weeds not being any problem. I do have another, larger, heavier, anchor, but without a windlass, don't use it often. Let what others say guide you, as to what is best suited to what bottom. Then make a decision based on all the facts.
Your location and the type of bottom your anchor has to hold in should be the backbone of your decision. I know the new style and new technology anchors claim to be good all round anchors. Not real sure I agree with that. I still use an old Danforth, and have no problems. Have never had it drag, it always sets easy and holds fine. BUT My sailing area is very good holding bottom, with grass or weeds not being any problem. I do have another, larger, heavier, anchor, but without a windlass, don't use it often. Let what others say guide you, as to what is best suited to what bottom. Then make a decision based on all the facts.
Actual test results
Since this is the second thread on this topic, and I have only experience on Bruce and Danforth anchors (and memory of PS tests on older models two years ago) I visited the Practical Sailor website to see if they have run tests on the new designs.
They had. They want to sell the test details, but here are their openly published results after shoreline tests, and tests off Chile:
In a followup to the November 2008 shoreside testing of three large cruising anchors, this field report offers a glimpse of how the Manson Supreme, Manson Ray, and Rocna anchors perform in the real world. The test products, two roll-bar anchors (Rocna and Supreme) and one Bruce-style anchor (the Ray), are all acceptable as main cruising anchors. They are all good, but with distinctive strengths and weaknesses, so we tried them out, anchoring in dense kelp, soft mud, and hard rock bottoms, as well as in anchorages where short scope was required.
The Bruce-style anchor set faster in most test situations, except very light mud. They did say that the Bruce had slightly less holding power per pound, and this article did not include tests of resetting.
Since this is the second thread on this topic, and I have only experience on Bruce and Danforth anchors (and memory of PS tests on older models two years ago) I visited the Practical Sailor website to see if they have run tests on the new designs.
They had. They want to sell the test details, but here are their openly published results after shoreline tests, and tests off Chile:
In a followup to the November 2008 shoreside testing of three large cruising anchors, this field report offers a glimpse of how the Manson Supreme, Manson Ray, and Rocna anchors perform in the real world. The test products, two roll-bar anchors (Rocna and Supreme) and one Bruce-style anchor (the Ray), are all acceptable as main cruising anchors. They are all good, but with distinctive strengths and weaknesses, so we tried them out, anchoring in dense kelp, soft mud, and hard rock bottoms, as well as in anchorages where short scope was required.
The Bruce-style anchor set faster in most test situations, except very light mud. They did say that the Bruce had slightly less holding power per pound, and this article did not include tests of resetting.
I think there are a few important things to be aware of in these tests.
1) The claw anchor used was a 118 pound Manson Ray. The Manson Ray is arguably built to a higher standard than even the original Bruce and this is clearly reflected in it's very high price. A 45 pound Manson Ray will cost you $800.00 while a 45 pound Manson Supreme will cost you just $465.00 and the Rocna only $658.00.
It is not a just, or fair comparison, to lump a Chinese made, non-hardened $139.00 cast iron claw against a hand fabricated steel anchor built to exacting standards that costs $800.00. The "claw" anchor used in these tests was NOT the run of the mill cheaply built anchor as many wrongly assume. The Manson Ray is a very, very expensive anchor built to exacting standards. I would use a real Manson Ray in a heart beat if it was over sized!
When one looks at the actual models tested in the PS test the Manson Ray cost $2039.00, the Manson Supreme $920.00 and the Rocna $1300.00. Again you can't compare or lump in cheap cast iron claw knock offs to a 2k+ high end anchor. The Manson Ray used in these tests cost 159% more than a Rocna!!!
2) They clearly under tested these anchors on pull strength and used a windlass to test them? They used a windlass to test anchors in the 118-130 pound category with a max load of 1000 lbs? Heck both a Manson Supreme 35lb & a Rocna 33lb held 5000 pounds in the sail magazine tests! PS was testing 118-130 pound anchors with 1000 pounds of pull?? What is the benefit of that? heck they could not even get the Manson Ray to set correctly in this test. In every single photo it is still laying on its side with one fluke dug in. They surmise it would have rolled "upright" had more power been applied but we just don't know for sure? Both the Rocna and Manson dug in and were perfectly upright. They even commented that the Rocna made the biggest furrow. This furrow is evidence of raw surface area/holding/contact area with the bottm..
3) What is a "Manson Supreme copy"? If we are trying to determine the effect of weight, on setting ability, and we have already tested a "real" Manson Supreme, a Ray and a Rocna why not use smaller versions of those exact anchors?? What is the point of trying to theorize the effect of weight on setting performance when you don't compare apples to apples?? While it is interesting that the "Manson Supreme COPY", a real Delta Fast Set, and a real CQR "skated" across the beach and never dug in, it does nothing to compare against the bench marks set by the bigger Manson Ray, Manson Supreme and Rocna?? Why did they not test a smaller claw style?? So many questions left unanswered?PS Test Article said:
4) Be sure to select a size that is ONE or TWO sizes larger than that of a roll bar style anchor (Manson Supreme or Rocna). Wow! Two sizes larger than a Rocna 33 is a 66lb claw! One size Larger is a 44 lb claw! Hows your back?? Of course they were not using cheap claws (wonder whyPS Test Article said:
) but rather a very, very expensive one. Math wise, using WM pricing, if you were to use a 66 pound Manson Ray @ $1229.00 vs. a 35 Manson Supreme @ $399.00 or a 33 pound Rocna @ $508.00 there is a HUGE cost savings to be had by buying a Rocna or Manson Supreme. Sorry but when you do the math it seems silly to even consider this approach unless of course you choose a cheap un-tested cast anchor like a Lewmar Claw 66 @ $189.00. Beth Leonoard and Evans Starzinger, perhaps two of biggest Bruce-style supporters on the planet, say they believe the effectiveness of the Bruce/claw type anchor is diminished, when compared to other styles, in sizes under 44 pounds? Just what does "effectiveness-relative to other styles-may be diminished in sizes under 44 pounds" actually mean? How many on this board even use an anchor over 44 pounds? How many here use a 66 pound Bruce or claw copy? I had good luck, relatively speaking, with my over sized genuine Bruce, but it did drag a few times in higher winds and that is not a good feeling. Setting wise I only had a few issues but most of the time it did set and re-set but when the wind piped up i always had that nagging feeling it would not hold..
Here are some numbers from the 10:1 scope test:
Distance Until Set
Manson Ray = 348cm
Manson Supreme = 363cm
Rocna = 385cm
A 14.5" set difference between the worst performance and the best on a very hard beach with large rocks is nothing to declare a winner or loser over especially when you consider a max of 1000 pounds of pull on a 118-130 pound anchor class is not totally set.. All these anchors performed exceptionally well considering the tough conditions. We should also remember that both the name brand CQR and Delta Fast set anchors only skated across the surface and never actually dug it to any level of holding let alone a measly 1000 pounds..
Cross Section of Furrow When Dug In
Manson Ray =175cm2
Manson Supreme =200cm2
Rocna =300cm2
It is important to note that this test was quite unrealistic!! In the 2:1 scope test they declared the Manson Ray the winner yet also said this:
Heck the Delta Fast Set & CQR would not even set at 10:1 and we know both of these anchors have millions of successful cruising mile on them!PS Anchor Test said:
C'mon who really tries to set an anchor at 2:1 (a 32 degree angle) on a hard, rocky & frozen beach? Furthermore 500 pounds of holding force on a 118 pound anchor is not holding. If you have a vessel that requires a 118-130 pound anchor you will probably see 500 pounds of pull or load in ten knots. A 110 pound Rocna is well suited for an 85 foot vessel and 500 pounds of load is nothing on a vessel that big.
While a 2:1 may be ok in very calm conditions one should always set at longer scopes and then shorten to a 3:1 or 2:1. I can't imagine what the point of trying to set at 2:1 is?
As any anchor should!!PS Anchor Test said:
Please remember that the results of the very expensive Ray anchor can not be assumed the same as a cheap cast claw. Comparing an $799.00 (WM pricing) 44 pound Manson Ray anchor to a $112.00 (Hamilton Marine pricing) Manta Claw or to a $129.00 (WM Pricing) Lewmar Claw is not the same....
I sometimes think that testers have a goal and design a test to validate their position. On a large beach you could test anchors of every description with a large construction tractor and a dynamometer. You could also design a test where only one anchor would pass. I remember reading in Practical Sailor that when someone would come in bragging about an anchor that would set everytime anywhere, they would tell him the drag it across the parking lot and show them.
I couldn't agree more Ross.
Just think of the joke about ASTM devising a standardized test with which all anchors could be compared.
Just think of the joke about ASTM devising a standardized test with which all anchors could be compared.
Which is pretty much what Maine Sail did in HIS tests
I stopped buying Practical Sailor years ago specifically because of these kinds of reviews. As a newer boater back then, I trusted their reports, until I started gaining my own experience and read what they actually had to say. Their validity has been reduced starting at least five or more years ago. This goes for anchors as well as other gear. They're not the Consumer Reports of boating that they used to be in the late 70s and 80s.
I stopped buying Practical Sailor years ago specifically because of these kinds of reviews. As a newer boater back then, I trusted their reports, until I started gaining my own experience and read what they actually had to say. Their validity has been reduced starting at least five or more years ago. This goes for anchors as well as other gear. They're not the Consumer Reports of boating that they used to be in the late 70s and 80s.
I bet my bulwagga would
Those pointy ends will catch even the smallest crack and dig in.
Tests
I'm going to defend PS on these tests. The article I quoted was a follow-up field test to an more exhaustive test published in an earlier PS. No one has spent the time to carefully test a variety of anchors in a variety of bottoms and conditions that PS has over the years. The article I quoted tested the three anchors in the conditions available on the crusing grounds noted. But the conclusion is based on those results as well as those in the more rigorous earlier testing.
Mainesail, if you want to run down their tests, I suggest you pay for the original article, and compare their total test process to your ideas.
We have an original Bruce anchor. I've heard nothing that would make me want to change that gear for a new design of great promise. but equal performance in the PS tests.
We have a well known tendency to love the boat, or gear we have. A lot of these discussions reflect preferences based on that subjective emotion, not on balanced analysis or testing. Of course, the product stories of our suppliers provide lots of ammo for us.
Finally, I was simply trying to add my two cents, and some solid conclusions from a respected organization. I'm sorry that it inspired an unexpected response.
I'm going to defend PS on these tests. The article I quoted was a follow-up field test to an more exhaustive test published in an earlier PS. No one has spent the time to carefully test a variety of anchors in a variety of bottoms and conditions that PS has over the years. The article I quoted tested the three anchors in the conditions available on the crusing grounds noted. But the conclusion is based on those results as well as those in the more rigorous earlier testing.
Mainesail, if you want to run down their tests, I suggest you pay for the original article, and compare their total test process to your ideas.
We have an original Bruce anchor. I've heard nothing that would make me want to change that gear for a new design of great promise. but equal performance in the PS tests.
We have a well known tendency to love the boat, or gear we have. A lot of these discussions reflect preferences based on that subjective emotion, not on balanced analysis or testing. Of course, the product stories of our suppliers provide lots of ammo for us.
Finally, I was simply trying to add my two cents, and some solid conclusions from a respected organization. I'm sorry that it inspired an unexpected response.
Well
I own and have owned Bruce, CQR's, Fortress, Danforth, Delta, Super Max, Spade (both an aluminum and steel version), Manson Supreme & Rocna. My own testing & use, in Northern New England, has lead me to the newer generation anchors like Spade, Manson Supreme & Rocna. Contrary to popular belief Maine has some nasty bottom types and it's not all mud it is, and can be, a good proving ground for anchors.
I also own a Super Max, which is also a new generation anchor, and I am not impressed with it at all so my "subjectivity" is not simply new vs. old but rather what works well where I choose to anchor and what does not. If the Super Max was all it was cracked up to be I'd still be using it and would have never purchased other new gen anchors. A funny thing is that I actually own two identically sized Spade's an A-80 (made of aluminum) and an S-80 (made of steel). The A-80 is a poor setter in hard bottoms and the S-80 does significantly better? In one location I tried to set my Spade A-80 six times and it would just skip across the bottom. I dug out the steel version, remember same physical dimensions the only difference is weight, assembled it and it set in about 15 feet as hard as being tied off to a pier..
If my older gen anchors, and my Spade A-80 and Super Max had been more reliable I would have never spent my hard earned money searching for a better mouse trap. As I have said before, many times, my Bruce anchors were the best setting of my older generation anchors. Unfortunately I never slept well when it blew because I knew the holding power was more limited than other anchors. As I have said before the Bruce is a fine anchor but should be up sized at least one size over the suggested size. Practical Sailor states, NOT JUST ME, it should be up size one or TWO sizes. Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger go up THREE whole sizes on Hawk..!!
Here's some of the testing I've done on my own for my own curiosity:
Manson Setting Charecteristics Video (LINK)
Spade Setting Characterisitcs Video (LINK)
Practical Sailor used to be a very good publication. I agree with others that it has become somewhat less in-depth and their methodology can often be quite odd. I still subscribe, but every time I read an article like the Answers For Hard Bottoms (vol 34 no 11) & Heavyweight Field Tests (vol 34 no 12) it makes me wonder why I continue to subscribe..
I am planning on spending almost $750.00 of my own money this spring on a strain gauge. Yes, I like real data of which there really has been very little that I really trust! I'm fairly fed up with this lack of good data so I will use it for a number of things including testing holding power of the different anchors I own all in the same substrate so it is a fair comparison. I will also measure the thrust of my engine and the effects and loads generated by wind/windage on a 36 foot sloop something I have NEVER seen recorded with a strain gauge. All windage data I have been able to find is theoretical not actual. It will be nice to finally know how much pull my anchor or mooring tackle sees in 30, 35 or 40+ knots..
In short I have done lots of testing. When I got my first Manson Supreme, the one Tim R. is currently using, I spent two full hours setting and re-setting it in an area where I know many of my anchors, including two of my new gen anchors, won't set at all or every sixth try at best. I could not get the Manson Supreme to not set no matter how much I tried. Needless to say I was impressed and Manson had ZERO marketing at the time, no ads, no web site marketing and no equivalent to Craig Smith, so I was NOT swayed by; "the product stories of our suppliers provide lots of ammo for us."
Yes I take anchoring seriously, maybe too seriously,but having been dragged into, sustaining damage, and having helped to pull many boats off the rocks over the years after storms I think I have decent reason to take it as seriously as I do. Many have used CQR's & Bruce's successfully for many years, I did too, and my CQR has the rust and scars to prove it. Unfortunately for the pristine areas we like to poke into it was anything but a good setter for me. I'm not one who likes to sail past a beautiful area thinking; "I'd like to stay there but the holding sucks", so I keep searching for the anchor that will let me stay there...
There are many boaters who have bottom conditions that will likely never need anything more than a CQR or claw type anchor but some of us don't have the luxury of great holding bottoms everywhere we want to anchor...
All I was doing was pointing out the idiosyncrasies and reasons why one can't always take Practical Sailor statements at face value. Often they are spot on but sometimes they do miss the mark. I really don't get this test at all and feel it was more of an embarrassment to their testing methodology/credibility than anything else.
Anyone who peruses the sailing forums knows Beth & Evans use a HUGE 110 pound Bruce anchor but their anchor is way up-sized compared to what is recommended, three full sizes up sized. In light of that it's no surprise why they have had such good success with it and "never a drag, ever". The recommended size for their 47 footer is a 55lb but they go three extra whole sizes up to 110 pounds..
If you did what Beth and Evans do on their boat, on your Hunter 27, that would leave you a 77 pound Bruce anchor.....you'd never, ever drag either..
David I do have a paid subscription and have both articles sitting right here on my desk. It's where I got the quotes and specifics from..
I have done lots of my own testing using my own anchors. I don't consider my many years of anchoring subjective. I knew bottom type, scope, water depth and how each anchor was set and that is not subjective that is actual data. If they dragged or refused to re-set I consider that data based on the conditions, scope and such not a subjective opinion.
I own and have owned Bruce, CQR's, Fortress, Danforth, Delta, Super Max, Spade (both an aluminum and steel version), Manson Supreme & Rocna. My own testing & use, in Northern New England, has lead me to the newer generation anchors like Spade, Manson Supreme & Rocna. Contrary to popular belief Maine has some nasty bottom types and it's not all mud it is, and can be, a good proving ground for anchors.
I also own a Super Max, which is also a new generation anchor, and I am not impressed with it at all so my "subjectivity" is not simply new vs. old but rather what works well where I choose to anchor and what does not. If the Super Max was all it was cracked up to be I'd still be using it and would have never purchased other new gen anchors. A funny thing is that I actually own two identically sized Spade's an A-80 (made of aluminum) and an S-80 (made of steel). The A-80 is a poor setter in hard bottoms and the S-80 does significantly better? In one location I tried to set my Spade A-80 six times and it would just skip across the bottom. I dug out the steel version, remember same physical dimensions the only difference is weight, assembled it and it set in about 15 feet as hard as being tied off to a pier..
If my older gen anchors, and my Spade A-80 and Super Max had been more reliable I would have never spent my hard earned money searching for a better mouse trap. As I have said before, many times, my Bruce anchors were the best setting of my older generation anchors. Unfortunately I never slept well when it blew because I knew the holding power was more limited than other anchors. As I have said before the Bruce is a fine anchor but should be up sized at least one size over the suggested size. Practical Sailor states, NOT JUST ME, it should be up size one or TWO sizes. Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger go up THREE whole sizes on Hawk..!!
Here's some of the testing I've done on my own for my own curiosity:
Manson Setting Charecteristics Video (LINK)
Spade Setting Characterisitcs Video (LINK)
Practical Sailor used to be a very good publication. I agree with others that it has become somewhat less in-depth and their methodology can often be quite odd. I still subscribe, but every time I read an article like the Answers For Hard Bottoms (vol 34 no 11) & Heavyweight Field Tests (vol 34 no 12) it makes me wonder why I continue to subscribe..
I am planning on spending almost $750.00 of my own money this spring on a strain gauge. Yes, I like real data of which there really has been very little that I really trust! I'm fairly fed up with this lack of good data so I will use it for a number of things including testing holding power of the different anchors I own all in the same substrate so it is a fair comparison. I will also measure the thrust of my engine and the effects and loads generated by wind/windage on a 36 foot sloop something I have NEVER seen recorded with a strain gauge. All windage data I have been able to find is theoretical not actual. It will be nice to finally know how much pull my anchor or mooring tackle sees in 30, 35 or 40+ knots..
In short I have done lots of testing. When I got my first Manson Supreme, the one Tim R. is currently using, I spent two full hours setting and re-setting it in an area where I know many of my anchors, including two of my new gen anchors, won't set at all or every sixth try at best. I could not get the Manson Supreme to not set no matter how much I tried. Needless to say I was impressed and Manson had ZERO marketing at the time, no ads, no web site marketing and no equivalent to Craig Smith, so I was NOT swayed by; "the product stories of our suppliers provide lots of ammo for us."
Yes I take anchoring seriously, maybe too seriously,
but having been dragged into, sustaining damage, and having helped to pull many boats off the rocks over the years after storms I think I have decent reason to take it as seriously as I do. Many have used CQR's & Bruce's successfully for many years, I did too, and my CQR has the rust and scars to prove it. Unfortunately for the pristine areas we like to poke into it was anything but a good setter for me. I'm not one who likes to sail past a beautiful area thinking; "I'd like to stay there but the holding sucks", so I keep searching for the anchor that will let me stay there...There are many boaters who have bottom conditions that will likely never need anything more than a CQR or claw type anchor but some of us don't have the luxury of great holding bottoms everywhere we want to anchor...
David please keep adding your two cents that is what this board is all about!!
All I was doing was pointing out the idiosyncrasies and reasons why one can't always take Practical Sailor statements at face value. Often they are spot on but sometimes they do miss the mark. I really don't get this test at all and feel it was more of an embarrassment to their testing methodology/credibility than anything else.
Anyone who peruses the sailing forums knows Beth & Evans use a HUGE 110 pound Bruce anchor but their anchor is way up-sized compared to what is recommended, three full sizes up sized. In light of that it's no surprise why they have had such good success with it and "never a drag, ever". The recommended size for their 47 footer is a 55lb but they go three extra whole sizes up to 110 pounds..
If you did what Beth and Evans do on their boat, on your Hunter 27, that would leave you a 77 pound Bruce anchor.....you'd never, ever drag either..
More the reason I think the Bulwagga doesn't get it's fair share of recommendations. Like I said before, it's not his money maker, so he doesn't push it. He built something that really works for himself and is willing to provide one for other sailors but don't think for a second he is trying to make money off you.
I used to think it was expensive but after hearing the other prices, it's cheap. For a 50'er it's $475 (was $450 when I got it a couple years ago) and $250 for a 30'er.
I would honestly say it holds as well or better then any anchor except the flukes, and Super Max, but I know flukes have a problem with setting on their own and now I've heard the max has had problems, so for everyday anchor, I don't think there is a better all round anchor then the Bulwagga as it is the BEST at setting...all on it's own.
But as for a storm anchor, I think nothing better then the Fortress (one size up) combined with the Bulwagga to protect against resets.
- Status