Hunter 146 vs Hunter 310
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 310 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 146 
Hunter 310 | Hunter 146 | Hunter 310 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 464 ft²43.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 17.82 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 173 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 19.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.1 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 310: the short version
- The Hunter 310 is the larger boat at 30.8 ft9.40 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 310 is heavier, displacing about 2400% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 146 carries the more powerful rig (30.2 vs 17.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 310 rates better for offshore work (2.12 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.