Allmand 31 vs Hunter 310
How do the Allmand 31 and Hunter 310 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allmand 31 
Hunter 310 | Allmand 31 | Hunter 310 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.8 ft9.37 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Waterline length | 27.9 ft8.51 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Beam | 11.3 ft3.45 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.17 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 11,100 lb5,035 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Ballast | 4,300 lb1,950 kg | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 461 ft²42.8 m² | 464 ft²43.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.82 | 17.82 |
| Displacement / Length | 228 | 173 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.5 | 19.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.03 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 7.1 |
Allmand 31 vs Hunter 310: the short version
- The Allmand 31 and Hunter 310 are close in length (30.8 ft9.37 m vs 30.8 ft9.40 m ).
- The Allmand 31 is heavier, displacing about 31% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 310 carries the more powerful rig (17.8 vs 14.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Allmand 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Allmand 31 rates better for offshore work (2.03 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.