Hunter 30 vs Hunter 310
How do the Hunter 30 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 30 
Hunter 310 | Hunter 30 | Hunter 310 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.4 ft9.27 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Waterline length | 25.8 ft7.85 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 9,700 lb4,400 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Ballast | 4,100 lb1,860 kg | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 453 ft²42.1 m² | 464 ft²43.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.94 | 17.82 |
| Displacement / Length | 254 | 173 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.1 | 19.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.91 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 7.1 |
Hunter 30 vs Hunter 310: the short version
- The Hunter 30 and Hunter 310 are close in length (30.4 ft9.27 m vs 30.8 ft9.40 m ).
- The Hunter 30 is heavier, displacing about 14% 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 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 30 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 30 rates better for offshore work (1.91 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.