Hunter 260 vs Ranger 26
How do the Hunter 260 and Ranger 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 260 
Ranger 26 | Hunter 260 | Ranger 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 21.8 ft6.63 m |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.73 m | 8.7 ft2.64 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 4.3 ft1.32 m |
| Displacement | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 5,860 lb2,658 kg |
| Ballast | 2,000 lb907 kg | 2,050 lb930 kg |
| Sail area | 299 ft²27.8 m² | 322 ft²29.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.36 | 15.85 |
| Displacement / Length | 178 | 254 |
| Comfort ratio | 17.2 | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.10 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.2 |
Hunter 260 vs Ranger 26: the short version
- The Hunter 260 and Ranger 26 are close in length (26.3 ft8.00 m vs 26.3 ft8.00 m ).
- The Ranger 26 is heavier, displacing about 17% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 260 carries the more powerful rig (16.4 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 26 rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 2.10).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.