Send us your own comments about this object.

Title:	RIFLE, ASSAULT -  U.S. ASSAULT RIFLE SPIW XM144 SN# 6
Maker/Manufacturer:	SPRINGFIELD ARMORY
Date of Manufacture:	C 1964
Eminent Figure:
Catalog Number:	SPAR 3166
Measurements:	OL: 84.4CM 33 1/4" BL:

Object Description:

U.S. ASSAULT RIFLE SPIW XM144 SN# 6
Manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Ma. - Springfield "convertible" SPIW in "bullpup" configuration. Point target weapon only. SPIW = Special Purpose Individual Weapon. Weapon is incomplete.

Markings:
Butt: SPRINGFIELD ARMORY/X/M/- /SERIAL NO. 6/U.S.

Exhibit label: "SPIW - A top secret program to develop a Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) further complicated the issue between the AR15 and M14. The SPIW was to be a single weapon that combined a 40 millimeter grenade launcher, a rifle capable of firing 50 rounds of a small caliber cartridges with steel needles called flechettes in full automatic, or controlled burst fire and weigh no more than a fully loaded M14. While the SPIW was in development, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera decided to end M14 production and purchase a limited number of AR15s."

The New York Times, March 15, 1964. "A New Gun Tested by Army. Weapon Fires Grenades and Small Arms, by Hanson W. Baldwin. A strange weapon pronounced 'spew' capable of firing small dart-like projectiles called 'flechettes' and 40mm grenades is now under test at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.
The Army hopes - though few officers are sanguine about it - that the tests will lead to development and production of a weapon that will solve what experts describe as the 'Army small-arms muddle.'
The tests will be highlighted during the spring when Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Gen. Wallace M. Greene, commandant of the Marine Corps, fire the new gun.
The weapon designated SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon is a multi-purpose hand-held weapon. One development version has two barrels, arranged like an 'over-and-under' shotgun.
One barrel is a grenade-launcher for use against area targets or in indirect fire. The other barrel fires the 'flechettes' (French for 'small arrows'), tiny finned darts about an inch long, with the diameter of a large pencil lead.
The flechettes are encased in plastic sabots and embedded in powder-filled cartridges that are loaded in the breach of the gun. The sabots are manufactured to fit the caliber of the gun: when the cartridge explodes, the burning powder pushes the sabot, with the smaller flechette inside it, through the muzzle at high velocity.
When the flechettes leaves the muzzle the sabot flies off, and the finned projectile arrows through the air at great speed.
'Buck Rogers' Weapon - Variations of this technique have tested from one to as many as 32 needle-like projectiles, encased in a single sabot, and fired by a single cartridge. The result, after the sabot falls off, is a kind of spray: some call it, somewhat derisively, a 'Buck Rogers death ray.'
The SPIW has been under development in various forms for more than six years.
Its present form - four versions form three private manufacturers and one from the Springfield Armory are being tested at Aberdeen - is the result of attempts to develop a weapon for the soldier that could provide high-angle curved fire (the grenade-launcher), aimed line-of-sight fire (the flechette), high automatic rates of fire and, above all, a greater probability of battlefield hits.
At the same time, an attempt to lighten the soldier's weapon was incorporated in the design.
Various models varying from .30 caliber down to the present types, understood to be 22 to 25 caliber, have been experimentally tested.
The Army has also tested duplex and triplex cartridges - ammunition that fires two or three conventional bullets simultaneously - hoping that the natural dispersion would result in greater hit probability. Both rifled bores and smooth-bore shotguns have tested.
All sorts of problems in the development of SPIW have been encountered, and the experts say these are far from solved.
At first no tracer element could be included in the tiny needle-like projectiles; it was almost impossible to see where the aimed fire was hitting.
This has now been partly solved: the weapon under test fire tracer ammunition that can be followed under good Many other criticisms of the SPIW concept have been made. Apparently even the experts of Ordnance magazine, a privately published military magazine dealing primarily with weapons and technological developments, are skeptical.
A recent bulletin published by the editors of Ordnance stated that 'apparently the developers arrived at SPIW by ignoring our Kentucky rifle heritage in favor of rocketry.'
'They reduced weight, increase velocity, added fins and sabot, then reduced weight further,' the bulletin said.
Critics say the dart concept makes for a highly erratic weapon, with considerable in accuracy. Even bushes or leaves might deflect the light needles in flight, it is said.
Lethal Wounds - The flechettes have a tendency to tumble on impact, or to penetrate flesh sideways, or end over end, thus inflicting tremendous wound, most of them lethal.
The recent article in The Army Times, unofficial Army newspaper, reported the comment of an officer who was asked about the medical task of healing a man wounded with flechettes.
'Don't kid yourself,' the Army Times reported the answer, 'it is not a job for a surgeon but for graves registration.
Thus, the flechette could have considerable psychological effect on the battlefield. But its critics see an adverse side.
The huge, tearing wounds the flechette might cause have been likened by some to those caused by the soft-nosed, expanding 'dum-dum' bullet, which was outlawed by most of the major nations at the Hague International Peace Conference 1899-1900. However, neither the United States nor Britain signed the declarations prohibiting the use of expanding bullets.
The SPIW is designed as a light weapon; with 750 rounds of ammunition it would weigh no more than the present M14 rifle with 160 rounds of 7.62 millimeter ammunition.
Some Army officers view the SPIW as equipment for special troops only, with possibly one issued to each squad.
However, Congressional testimony by high officers has indicated the Army hopes it will provide a new approach to small arms. It hopes that sometime after 1965 SPIW may be able to replace the three different calibers of rifles now used by the Army.
However, the SPIW's chances are complicated - not only by the criticism of it, but also by the current development of a competing weapon. This is part of the so-called Stoner Weapons System.
This system, under experimental development and limited production by the Cadillac Gauge Company, is advertised as comprising six separate arms, all built from 16 basic assemblies.
The system - a fixed machine gun, a light belt-fed machine gun, a light magazine-fed machine gun, a medium machine-gun, an assault rifle and a carbine for the .223-caliber high-velocity cartridge. This is the caliber of the newest rifle in the Army's present armory, the M16, formerly the AR15.
The Marine Corps is starting a test of the Stoner System as soon as an order from Cadillac is filled. The weapons system is named for its designer, Eugene M. Stoner, who also designed the AR15 rifle.
The newest tests add to the complexity of the Army small arms problem. Today, despite years of emphasis upon standardization, the Army utilizes three different rifles, each of a different caliber.
The M1 (Garand) - semi-automatic, .30-caliber, the standard rifle of World War II - is still in service in most of the National Guard and Reserve Units and as a back-up for regular units.
Its successor, the M14, of 7.62 millimeter North Atlantic Treaty Organization standard caliber, capable of full automatic fire became the so-called standard rifle of the Army six and a half years ago.
Problems of design and production delayed delivery of weapons to the troops, and last month, after the lighter M16 had shown usefulness in South Vietnam, further orders for the M14 were canceled or withheld.
The Army ordered 85,000 of the M16 .223-caliber for Special Forces and airborne units.
When all deliveries of the M14 are completed, the Army will haAll Types Criticized - All of these rifles - particularly the M14 and the M16 - have been severely criticized by small-arms experts. Some critics have said the M14 and M16 do not represent enough improvements to justify the replacement of the M1.
To complicate the Army's small-arms picture, there have been many other delays and difficulties in other weapons.
The M60 machine gun, which uses the same ammunition as the M14, has had field difficulties with its cover; after considerable use the rivets become loosened and the gun becomes inoperative. A simple tool remedies this, but the tools have been lacking, and many guns have been inoperative awaiting repair.
The M73 vehicular mounted gun was supposed to have been ready for issue many months ago; it has not been issued yet. There have been other delays or failures in other light-caliber weapons.
Some critics believe the long delays, the inadequate designs and the incompatible-ammuntion problems have put the United States Army well behind the Russians in small-arms development."

HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
1JAN61 - 30JUN61 - "The design of two weapons concepts to fire the XM144 ammunition was initiated at the Armory and the work plan requires the completion of shooting model of each concept for demonstration purposes by the end of January 1962."
1JUL61 - 31DEC61 - "The Armory has completed the design and fabrication of one of its two weapon concepts to fire the XM144 ammunition. The other Armory concept weapon will be completed by the end of January or early February 1962. A grenade launcher concept was scheduled to be completed in February of 1962. These prototypes were scheduled to undergo development tests during the first part of 1962 so that the required test data will be available by 30 June 1962. During the last two months of 1961 the Armory has performed preliminary investigations concerning the effect of water in the bore of small caliber rifles. It was planned to continue and enlarge these investigations in 1962 with special emphasis being placed upon the effect of bore water on the special projectile of the XM144/XM110 ammunition type.
The Springfield Armory supplied various Ordnance Corps installations such as Aberdeen Proving Ground and Frankford Arsenal with test weapons and ammunition to enable continuation of feasibility and development studies of the novel micro-caliber ammunition-weapon system proposed at Springfield. Terminal ballistic tests at the Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen confirmed the feasibility of this system as indicated initially by lethality tests at the Army's Chemical Center's 'Wound Ballistics Laboratory.' Ballistic and other development tests of this micro-caliber ammunition, considered as a back-up to the XM110/XM144 cartridge, were planned in 1962 with the Springfield Armory providing the test weapons and Frankford Arsenal furnishing the ammunition.
Aircraft Armaments, Inc. continued the development of small arms mechanisms to fire their XM110 ammunition. In addition to increasing mechanism reliability and development of a high capacity magazine, this contractor directed development efforts toward reduction of automatic fire dispersion.
The Winchester-Western Division of the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., under contract to the Armory, designed, fabricated and developed a small arms mechanism which incorporated a unique recoil mechanism. The dispersion and accuracy tests were scheduled to be completed by the end of January 1962. It was contemplated that these investigations will be continued under an additional contract, a request for which was initiated.
A contract was negotiated with Winchester to modify the Caliber .223 Winchester Light Rifle to fire the XM144 ammunition. These weapons were scheduled to be ready for test in early 1962.
The Remington Arms Co., oThe muzzle stabilizer contract with Kexplore Inc. was completed. Although the GIC device resulted in some reduction in dispersion, the displayed reduction was not significant. The Armory initiated action to continue these muzzle stabilizer-flash suppressor investigations with other concerns."
1JAN62 - 30JUN62 - "The design and fabrication of two Armory SPIW mechanism concepts were completed. The function and development testing of these mechanisms were seriously delayed because of XM144 ammunition development problems which had not been resolved to date. The design, fabrication, and initial testing of a three shot-pump type launcher were also completed.
The Armory continued to supply various Ordnance Corps installations, such as Aberdeen Proving Ground and Frankford Arsenal, with various small arms mechanisms for lethality, accuracy, and dispersion tests. These mechanisms were multi- and single-barrel test mechanisms to fire the XM110, XM144 and the micro caliber cartridges.
Springfield Armory completed its preliminary investigations regarding the effects of water in the bore of small caliber rifles and a report was written. These tests were conducted with the XM110 ammunition.
Preparations for more extensive water-in-bore tests were completed. Three commercial rifles were modified to fire the XM144 ammunition and nine barrels of three different wall thickness were also fabricated for use with the three modified rifles for the water-in-bore tests. Sufficient quantities of acceptable XM144 ammunition would be required during the middle of July 1962 for the initiation of these scheduled tests. Extensive laboratory tests were also planned and were to be initiated when FY63 funds become available in July 1962.
Aircraft Armaments, Inc. continued development of its small arms mechanisms to fire the XM110 ammunition. The major portion of this contractor's work during the last half of FY62 was devoted to decreasing the dispersion of short burst fire in preparation for the series of dispersion tests at Aberdeen. The results of these tests with AAI mechanisms were quite favorable in that they are indicative of the feasibility of the single-barrel, serially fired approach."
1JUL62 - 30JUN63 - "Function and development work on two Armory SPIW mechanisms progressed slowly because of ammunition problems, i.e., pressure. In early September, the possibility of an accelerated effort was announced by HQ, AWC. In early October, HQ, AWC held a briefing which initiated the competitive phase of the SPIW program and the solicitation of bids from industry. Springfield Armory, informed in October that its SPIW effort had to be reduced to one approach, selected one of its concepts for further development in early November. The SPIW program requirements were reviewed and a development plan formulated.
The development plan included the placement of contracts for support in the design, development, and fabrication of a large capacity magazine, a launcher, and a muzzle device. Late in January, the Request for Proposals were mailed to various facilities, proposals received and evaluated, and the award of contracts requested. A change in the development plan prior to the awarding request stage was instituted. The development of the muzzle device was cancelled. In June 1963, a contract for the launcher and a contract for the magazine were placed. In mid-January, the Armory received notification from HQ, AWC that the accelerated program had been approved. The prototype weapon underwent major retrofitting of parts, specifically an The fabrication of four test weapons was initiated: two, received in mid-April for in-house development work, and two, received in mid-May for use by the contractor supporting Springfield Armory effort. Only one of the latter two weapons was used for Armory development work; the other was transferred for use in supporting investigations, mainly stripper development work. Two additional weapons were fabricated and were delivered during the latter part of May for development work.
As a result of a meeting 26-28 February 1963 at HQ, AWC, a concept and feasibility study of a conventional configuration for the S.A. mechanism was performed and it was determined not feasible to make any major design changes. However, a compromise approach was found which does not alter the basic mechanism functioning parts. By means of a conversion kit, the compromise design can be assembled to have a bullpup configuration or a conventional configuration....
Aircraft Armaments, Inc. continued development of its small arms mechanisms to fire the XM110 ammunition. The contract was extended from August 1962 to October 1962 and then to December. During this period, Aircraft Armaments completed fabrication and limited test of Model #4 firing mechanism. The contract terminated on 15 December 1962.
At the request of HQ, AWC, contractual negotiations with Aircraft Armaments were initiated in November to fabricate three of the Model #4 firing mechanisms. In addition to fabrication, the contract calls for additional development of the mechanism to improve function reliability. As of June 1963, changes in stock design, sear mechanism latching, and the selector have been tested and will be incorporated in the test fixtures. Long lead items have been farmed out for fabrication; the remaining items will be fabricated in-house by Aircraft Armaments, Inc.
The Winchester-Western Division improved recoil prototype mechanism contract was extended from mid-December 1962 to mid-February 1963. Function difficulties were experienced. Winchester completed the contact in mid-February. The difficulties experienced had been overcome. In In March, Winchester requested that all government-furnished material, including the test fixture fabricated under the contract, be transferred to a contract Winchester-Western Division has with Hq, AWC. The transfer was approved by Hq, AWC.
A contract was placed with Winchester-Western to modify one of the Winchester Caliber .223 light rifles previously converted to fire FA-XM144 ammunition. The modification would allow the weapon to fire Winchester XM144-WE4 ammunition. At the completion of this contract, the weapon was loaned to Winchester until 26 July 1963 (Hq, AWC permission) for use under Frankford Arsenal contract....
Components for several of the test weapons are being fabricated for Research and Engineering Division. Parts for five weapons were delivered and seven more are planned for a 15 December 1963 delivery.
Parts were made in the Tool Room, and difficulty was experierenced in meeting the extremely tight requirements. Even under tool room methods it was nearly impossible to produce some of the conditions required by the components drawings, and the majority of parts were accepted on waiver. Despite delays encountered in inspecting the parts, and subsequent rework and waiver action, deliveries were made very near to schedule. Experience showed that a very complete and exhaustive analysis and redesign is needed for producibility if this weapon is ever to be manufactured in quantity."
1JUL63 - 30JUN64 - "Varying quantities of development-type weapons were made in the tool rooms of Research and Engineering Division (R&E), including fourteen SPIW's and some spare parts. Redesign and redimensioning of some parts of this weapon had been made since the first weapon were fabricated, but dimensions and tolerances were still extremely close, and serious problems would be met in attempting quantity fabrication. A complete and thorough analysis for producibity is needed bThe major decisions to the basic mechanism were made during the first quarter of FY64. The first concerned the overall configuration of the weapon, i.e., the 'bullpup; versus the conventional. The second decision concerned the magazine stacking arrangement, i.e., 'tandem' stacking versus 'four to two' stacking. To aid in the decision relative to the overall mechanism configuration, an existing 'bullpup' mechanism was stripped of all parts oriented toward the 'bullpup' configuration and then modified so that, by assembly of the proper component parts, the resulting mechanism configuration was 'conventional.' After an Armory test, the conventional configuration mechanism and a 'bullpup' configuration mechanism were sent to the Human Engineering Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground for tests. Prior to the completion of the tests, it became essential to decide upon the configuration so that fabrication could be initiated to meet the February 1964 delivery date. On the basis of test firing data available as well as other factors, the Armory decided the mechanism for delivery to Hq, AWC would be of the 'bullpup' configurations.
In addition to the activity related to the configuration tests, the cyclic rate of the mechanisms was increased by approximately 50 per cent. The test firing of prototypes disclosed that they were plagued by failures-to-eject, a heating problem, a noise problem, and a misfire problem. The need to eliminate these problems resulted in the decision that additional development was required and that the Armory would not deliver three mechanisms to H1, AWC during November. Hq, AWC was so notified. Fabrication of the three mechanims by the R&D Model Shop, initiated during the first quarter, was rescheduled for completion of fabrication at the end of the second quarter of FY64. At the end of the first quarter, the Armory's Operations Division commenced fabrication of the remaining seven weapons with delivery scheduled for the end of the second quarter of FY64.
The second decision relative to type magazine was necessitated so that fabrication of the butt stock extension, a long lead fabrication item, could begin. A comparison of the various features of the two approaches resulted in a decision to pursue the 'tandem' magazine approach. The magazine contractor supporting the Armory was notified of this decision and agreed to pursue the 'tandem' magazine rather than the 'four stack to two stack' approach. The dates of magazine delivery were rescheduled to fit in with the rescheduled mechanism delivery dates.
A prototype multi-round launcher was fabricated and test fired early in October 1963 by the supporting contractor. The tests revealed that magazine and extractor problems required resolution. In addition, sighting and triggering methods required correction for satisfactory use for shoulder-support at any angle of elevation. The weight of the prototype was well above the estimate, and potential weight reduction, without attempting to use lighter materials, appeared insufficient. The contractor was requested to investigate the use of magnesium and plastic. The dates of lancher delivery were researched to fit in with the rescheduled mechanism delivery dates.
Preshipment tests of the mechanism and launchers slipped because of late delivery of launchers. The magazines required reinforcement to improve the round retention characteristics. The launchers were subject to 'failure to eject' and 'incomplete strip' type malfunctions. The magazine contractor reinforced the magazines; however, a high percentage of the magazines delivered had improperly machined feed lips. The best of the magazines were selected for test and shipment along with the ten mechanisms to be delivered. The launcher feed and cycling problems were corrected by a coordinated effort between the contractor and Armory personnel.
In early March, ten mechanisms complete with launchers and other accessories were delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground. From March through May 1964, the Armor1. Stripper. To date, the search for a material which will provide acceptable endurance life for stripper application has not been successful. Various mateials and plating were tested. An increase in the stripper length did not provide increased endurance life.
2. Barrel. All firing and laboratory tests pertaining to the first phase of the water-in-bore investigations were completed. A final report of the tests was prepared and is expected to be available for distribution during the first quarter of FY65. Additional barrels were fabricated and limited confirmatory tests of the critical increments have been planned for the first quarter of FY65.
In the first and second quarter of FY64, bore diameter tolerance tests were performed and limiting dimensions on barrel bore dimensions were established. A preliminary report was prepared and distributed.
3. Ammunition. Three fixtures of Armory design were fabricated and delivered to Frankford Arsenal and the Ballistic Research Laboratory for XM144 ammunition tests. One of the fixtures was returned from Frankford for modification to chamber and cycled with an increase body diameter XM144 cartridge. Modifications were completed and limited tests of the ammunition were performed.
Three Model No. 4 fixtures for firing XM110 ammunition were delivered to the Armory by Aircfraft Armaments, Inc. during December 1963. At the request of Hq, AWC, in February, each of these fixtures was used to fire a limited number of cartridges to determine the effects of lubricated versus nonlubricated cartridges on function. A chamber of one of these fixtures was later modified and the fixture was subjected to test using nonlubricated cases. Reports covering each of these tests were prepared and distributed. In May, the Armory supported Frankford Arsenal by performing limited ammunition tests of XM110 ammunition with increased body diameter cases. A fixture capable of firing this ammunition was provided to the Armory by Frankford.
In August 1964, the Armory was requested by Hq, AWC to design, develop and fabricate single-shot launchers as a backup to themulti-round launchers with a delivery request of no later than February 1964. The Armory initiated two approaches. One approach utilized an outside facility to design and draft a side pivot type launcher under an existing design support contract. The fabrication was performed in-house. The second approach was to place a contract for the design, development and fabrication of a center pivot type launcher. The side pivot type launcher was not ready in time for testing. Four center pivot type launchers were delivered to Ft. Benning, Georgia, for evaluation.
1JUL65 - 30JUN66 - Special Purpose Individual Weapon - In July, the first two prototypes were assembled; the initial firing tests disclosed that the firing cycle sequence redesign because of the failure of a component to perform its task. The necessity to redesign and refabricate delayed firing until late August.
In July, a contract was signed with a private facility to design, fabricate, and develop the area weapon portion of the system. Early in August, an executive committee meeting was held at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and Springfield Armory was directed to change its area weapon design relative to the feeding system. A contract change was placed with the facility to incorporate the feed system design changes.
In early August, a contract was placed with a second private facility to develop an alternate feed system for the point weapon.
During the latter part of August, development testing of the point weapon was reinitiated. The ammunition supplied was fabricated by Frankford Arsenal. The first contractor-fabricated ammunition was delivered in late September. Initial testing of Frankford lots showed some tendency of the fired cases to give expanded heads. This problem At Hq, AWC, in November, the punchout problem was discussed, and Frankford expedited a change in the primer cup thickness in an attempt to alleviate the punchouts.
In December, Hq, AWC gave approval for the Armory to fabricate long lead items in advance of the design approval meeting which was rescheduled from 1 December to 15 January.
Late in December, the Armory received the first lot of ammunition with thicker primer cups from Frankford. No punchouts were experienced during the testing of approximately 1,500 rounds.
By the end of 1965, the Armory had fabricated a total of 11 weapons, of which seven were for development testing and four for the project manager. All except three of the weapons were assembled. Two of the weapons were shipped out: One to Frankford and one to the contractor for the alternate feed system of the point weapon.
In mid-January, a Design Approval and pre-In-Process Review Meeting was held at APG. The Armory received design approval and approval to release all short lead items for fabrication.
The first sample of contractor-fabricated ammunition, with the thicker walled primer cup, was received in late January. Leaky primers and punchouts were experienced. In addition, breakage of hammers and the splitting of muzzle devices occurred. As a result of these events, a meeting was held at Hq, AWC to discuss the Armory weapon status.
The outcome of the meeting was that Frankford Arsenal and the Armory were to prepare position papers on the technical advantages and a cost estimate for a program slippage of 90 days for prepartion of the AMC position prior to the In-Process Review Meeting which took place in late February.
In early March, the Armory received guidance to proceed as if a 90-day slippage was in effect. The Armory immediately undertook the updating of its development weapons. Meanwhile, Frankford expedited for test a 2000-round sample of ammunition with a second increase in promer cup wall thickness. This modification with a modification to the weapon firing system eliminated punchouts. Unrestricted development testing was now possible.
In March, because of increased costs of the contractor, an inability to keep the contractor supplied with an updated weapon, and a lack of supply of suitable ammunition for development, the alternate point weapon feed system contract was terminated for the convenience of the Government.
In April, the area weapon contractor delivered 10 weapons which were functionally unsatisfactory. A contract supplement was placed for the functional improvement of the launcher with delivery scheduled early in July.
The fabrication and procurment of parts for the systems now scheduled to be delivered in August were initiated in May, with planned fabrication of all components by mid-June. The inability of outside facilities to deliver as scheduled placed the delivery of weapons by 1 August 1966 in jeopardy. Immediate steps were taken to have the delivery of componenets expedited. The Armory's Model Shop was instructed to fabricate delinquent parts necessary to assemble the first three weapons.
Supporting investigation activities covered the following areas:
1. Barrel Insert: The search for a material which will provide acceptable endurance life continued. Several material variations of the material found to give a service life of at least 50 per cent of the barrel life for nonsustained type firings were tested. None of these material variations increased the service life.
2. Ammuntion: Assistance was given to Frankford Arsenal by test-firing ammunition produced there and by Frankford contractors until such time as a weapon was furnished to Frankford in October....
Work was continued on design and material selection for barrel and muzzle devices. Ingenious methods of assembly by use of interferences fits were devised to take advantage of materials having high resistance to wear but l
Notes: "The U.S. Armed Forces do not consider either the 7.62mm NATO caliber or the 5.56mm caliber the ultimate answer to their requirements. The U.S. Army has always devoted considerable thoughtful effort to the development of small arms and ammunition, and it is reasonably safe to predict new weapons and ammunition will be developed and adopted in the near future.
The Army has been working on the SPIW Special Purpose Individual Weapon for a good 25 years, and rifle versions in this weapons development program are undergoing tests at the present time. The SPIW fires a small, light, dart-shaped ultra-high velocity 'flechette' projectile that is reported to have much more effect on some targets than conventional bullets. Since the range of the flechette type projectile would be limited it must be assumed that more conventional bulleted ammunition can also be fired in the SPIW. The SPIW weapon and ammunition are radically differed from anything in use, and if they prove successful, their effect on future weapons development will be profound." - Konrad Schreier, Jr.

"...With General Wheeler's report, and with the inspector general's countereport on the army's bias in the testing, Secretary McNamera had to decide what to do next. While he was deliberating, the Army Small Arms Development Staff confided to him that it would soon have a radically new weapon that would make both the M14 and AR-15 - and, yes, even the AK47 - obsolete. A product of a secret program the army had in place called the SPIW - the Special Purpose Individual Weapon - this new rifle would fire a cartridge loaded with flechettes - small lethal darts that hit their target with a large pattern of lethality. This revolutionary rifle concept, if realized, could make each infantryman a one-man killing machine.
The SPIW concept caused the secretary to hesitate over his decision. Although the idea had been around for years, the Army Material Command had only recently begun to design the weapon in its ordnance labs. Critics quickly pointed out that this was 1962, many years after the AR-15 had been created. Why, they asked, had the Army Material Command - the Ordnance Corps under its new name - taken so long to get started with research into their own radically different weapon?
Dr. J.A. Stockfish, a former senior research associate with the Institute of Defense Analysis, and a staff member of the RAND Corporation, provides a blunt answer. In his book on the Defense Department, he calls the SPIW 'a political tactic.' Army thinkers, he says, 'conceived the program as a way of heading off a possible major purchase of M16's (the army designation of the AR-15).' If the idea behind the SPIW was to impel McNamera to kill the AR-15, while producing the M14 as an interim weapon, the effort failed." - William H. Hallahan

"The Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) project of the 1960s created (depending who you talk to) either the ultimate battlefield weapon or the most expensive boondoggle in recent military history." - Altas Editions, Inc.

References:
Hallahan, William H. MISFIRE: THE HISTORY OF HOW AMERICA'S SMALL ARMS HAVE FAILED OUT MILITARY. Charles Scribner's Sons. N.Y., N.Y. 1994.
Schreier, Jr., Konrad. GUIDE TO UNITED STATES MACHINE GUNS. Normount Technical Publications. Wickenburg, Az. 1971.