Hunter 170 vs Hunter 410
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 410 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 410 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 410 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 43.4 ft13.23 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 37.8 ft11.53 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 13.8 ft4.22 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 20,200 lb9,163 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,400 lb3,357 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 822 ft²76.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 167 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 23.9 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.03 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 8.2 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 410: the short version
- The Hunter 410 is the larger boat at 43.4 ft13.23 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 410 is heavier, displacing about 4126% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 170 carries the more powerful rig (35.1 vs 17.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 410 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 410 rates better for offshore work (2.03 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.