Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 386
How do the Hunter 19-2 and Hunter 386 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 19-2 
Hunter 386 | Hunter 19-2 | Hunter 386 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.0 ft5.79 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 15.9 ft4.85 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Beam | 7.8 ft2.36 m | 12.6 ft3.83 m |
| Draft | 4.7 ft1.42 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 2,000 lb907 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 167 ft²15.5 m² | 740 ft²68.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.83 | 18.65 |
| Displacement / Length | 221 | 218 |
| Comfort ratio | 12.0 | 25.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.46 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.3 | 7.6 |
Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 386: the short version
- The Hunter 386 is the larger boat at 38.3 ft11.66 m LOA versus 19.0 ft5.79 m for the Hunter 19-2.
- The Hunter 386 is heavier, displacing about 700% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 386 carries the more powerful rig (18.6 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 386 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 386 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 2.46).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.