sigarms228 said:
Great point but on the internet don't forget about the "internet super commandos". They make SEALS look like a pack of bumbling Cub Scouts, at least in their minds.
Over the years I've known several guys who did Special Ops for the US Army. One of the older ones (my age) did 3.5 tours in Vietnam as part of a Special Forces A Team, mostly working with the Montagnards; another did Black Ops in Africa and elsewhere. I also knew (but wasn't close to) one SEAL who was the spouse of a lady I worked with. I've talked with another SEAL, as well.
The first three guys I talked with in depth said that in combat handguns were infrequently used, but were a form of insurance (if they ran out of sub-gun ammo, had a malfunction, etc.) The other SEAL I talked with said he trained with handguns and was proficient, but noted there have been times when he would have been better served by carrying an extra canteen rather than a handgun. That guy might've been pulling my chain, but I suspect he was just making a point: a bigger, more powerful weapon (like the older M16A1 [from the VN era], or the current M16A2 and M16A3, at a minimum) trumped a handgun almost every time.
We (forum participants) tend to focus on handguns because in the civilian world, things are different. Even LEOs often seek to access to M16s when they have a choice. My son, a NC State Trooper has been issued and carries one in his vehicle.
We carry for different reasons -- anticipating the statistically rare break-in or assault. We don't really want the rounds we fire to go through walls and bodies and more walls, etc. And most of us aren't proficient with full-automatic weapons (even if they shoot only 3-round bursts).
If the recent attacks in Paris suggest anything, it may be that we'll all be carrying more frequently and, perhaps, rethinking what we carry... And the bad guys will probably be better-armed than we are.
