• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

.300 Whisper

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

I am becoming very interested in building a new rifle. Actually I want to build a new upper for my AR in .300 Whisper.

I think I would like a 16" barrel with an integral supressor, so I know I will be looking at a tax stamp.

So.....does anybody have a recommendation for the machine work? I have never had a integrally supressed rifle, but I understand the supressor needs to be permanently mounted to the barrel.

I would appreciate any thoughts or comments. This project is in a direction that is unfimiliar to me.
 

spike89

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

Did you see the article on the .300 whisper in this months "American Rifleman" magazine?

According to the article, this company makes .300 whisper uppers for AR-15's:
http://www.sskindustries.com/ar15.htm

IIRC, Washington law / AG decision says you can own a suppressor, but not use it... don't know if this applies to an integral suppressor or just add-ons. Maybe one of the more legal-fluent members can clarify.
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

spike89 wrote:
Did you see the article on the .300 whisper in this months "American Rifleman" magazine?

According to the article, this company makes .300 whisper uppers for AR-15's:
http://www.sskindustries.com/ar15.htm

IIRC, Washington law / AG decision says you can own a suppressor, but not use it... don't know if this applies to an integral suppressor or just add-ons. Maybe one of the more legal-fluent members can clarify.
Already called them, they don't make the integrally suppressed for the AR.
Still not sure on the law either. I believe if it is integral, it is ok to shoot.
Was at a dealer who is getting AR's integrally suppressed in 9mm custom made, which led me to think about the whisper.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
imported post

Hope you plan to roll your own, I believe Corbon is the only company offering factory ammo.

I have shot several and do like the caliber but the idea of not been able to get ammo locally stopped me from pursuing.

Info and hear a suppressedAR in .300whisper.

http://www.larrywillis.com/300Whisper.html
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
...and yet, Agent 47 makes a good argument that he believes that law is only for non-registered sound suppressors.

If I remember correctly, his argument went along the lines of 'law enforcement officers and military personel use them, but the law has no exception for either. Therefore, either it's legal to use a registered sound suppressor, or there's a whole lot of LEO's and military that need to be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor.'

Honestly, I kind of agree with him, but I sure as heck don't want to be the test case for it.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
joeroket wrote:
The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
...and yet, Agent 47 makes a good argument that he believes that law is only for non-registered sound suppressors.

If I remember correctly, his argument went along the lines of 'law enforcement officers and military personel use them, but the law has no exception for either. Therefore, either it's legal to use a registered sound suppressor, or there's a whole lot of LEO's and military that need to be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor.'

Honestly, I kind of agree with him, but I sure as heck don't want to be the test case for it.
well he is correct that there is no exeption for LEO but I would imagine there is for military somewhere buried in law. There is no argument, with the way the wording of the law in Wa. is, that is a good argument saying that the law applies to non-registered suppressors. The law is very straight forward and says "any contrivance or device". To me that is very cut and dry.
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
joeroket wrote:
The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
...and yet, Agent 47 makes a good argument that he believes that law is only for non-registered sound suppressors.

If I remember correctly, his argument went along the lines of 'law enforcement officers and military personel use them, but the law has no exception for either. Therefore, either it's legal to use a registered sound suppressor, or there's a whole lot of LEO's and military that need to be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor.'

Honestly, I kind of agree with him, but I sure as heck don't want to be the test case for it.
Agreed. HOWEVER, if the firearm is purchased and properly transferred, (taxed), with a permenantly affixed (integral) suppressor, how would that be using "any contrivance or device for supressing the noise of a firearm", when it is PART OF the firearm as a whole?
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

Maybe we should start contacting our representatives to attempt to Amend the RCW to read this instead:

(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
firearm unless the suppressor is legally possessed in
accordance with federal law

Senator Hargrove attempted to change it in 2006.

Anybody in his district, if he is still in office? Or Pam Roach would be a good contact for this also.

 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

Well, I am still going to continue with this project. Might do a .338 Whisper though instead. not sure yet. I live close enough to Idaho that when i want to shoot it I wont have to go too far.
 

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
imported post

I know a guy in Montana that builds guns, and built himself a 300 Whisper on a Savage platform. And because it is Montana he has a can for it.

I have gone out with him a few times, once with the Whisper. It is a very neat round. Accurate, yet very quiet.

You could always give him a call and see what he recommends. I am sure he would be glad to answer any questions you have. Here is his contact info from Midway.

http://www.midwayusa.com/gunsmithlocator/GLGunsmithDetails.aspx?custNum=100331491&path=1.148510.148690&codeID=151551

bob
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
In a tiwsted sort of way, that would make ear protection illegal as well:celebrate:celebrate
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:
joeroket wrote:
The way the law reads it is not discriminatory between an internal or external suppressor.

"who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
In a tiwsted sort of way, that would make ear protection illegal as well:celebrate:celebrate
Very true huh?
 
Top