Hunter 38 vs Hunter 386
How do the Hunter 38 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 38 
Hunter 386 | Hunter 38 | Hunter 386 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.2 ft11.63 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 34.7 ft10.57 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Beam | 12.9 ft3.94 m | 12.6 ft3.83 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 18,342 lb8,320 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | 6,130 lb2,781 kg | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 702 ft²65.2 m² | 740 ft²68.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.15 | 18.65 |
| Displacement / Length | 196 | 218 |
| Comfort ratio | 26.3 | 25.0 |
| Capsize screening | 1.96 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.9 | 7.6 |
Hunter 38 vs Hunter 386: the short version
- The Hunter 38 and Hunter 386 are close in length (38.2 ft11.63 m vs 38.3 ft11.66 m ).
- The Hunter 38 is heavier, displacing about 15% 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 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 38 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 38 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 2.00).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.