As said and repeated, soldiers don't carry pistols in a combat zone. It's an officers weapon or one used in military police duties. When you research the real beginnings of the M4, an early intent was to issue it to drivers and sundry who would be handicapped with larger rifle but still needed more than a pistol could offer. Same reasoning behind the M2 carbine.
As for LEO's banging their weapons around, take it to the next degree: chasing suspects down allies, they bounce off dumpsters, scale fences, crawl on the ground, get into wrestling matches on concrete and asphalt, etc. It's not a donuts and cruiser lifestyle in reality.
The service pistol? Full flap holster worn in the majority by those who do not command in the trenches. And as said, when they try it, they quickly decide otherwise.
Again, if you are a Marine you are not issued a pistol unless you the rank of full colonel or above. Keep pointing out the exceptions - it's the elite small units who get the 1911.
Some one dropping a gun in water, mud, and sand then shooting a few rounds does not really prove any thing in my mind.
And yet, that is exactly the protocol the Glock survived to be chosen the Austrian Army's sidearm, and now the British Army.
They didn't bother to ask anyone, they decided it on it's own merits to their standards and conditions. Considering they didn't adopt the Hi Power until the late '60s, the Brits are as notoriously slow as we are sometimes.
What was the main reason the M16 was fielded? More bullets flying toward the enemy means more hits, even if it wasn't immediately directed at any specific target. Battle is dynamic, soldiers walk into the flight path of a bullet often enough, and the more hit, the less battle power a unit has.
Entirely why the French wanted more bullets - their research in trench warfare saw the need, they upped the mag capacity, they were responding to the dynamics of warfare. As nations saw the trend, they all added magazine capacity, and the additional trend of not needing high powered rounds complemented that trend in rifles. Pistols are already low powered short range weapons meant for close combat.
Armies get combat pistols, experienced shooters with limited targets working in close encounters don't necessarily need hi cap guns. Hence, the double stack double action guns go to the troops as general issue, the single stack single action guns are crossing over to become the mainstay of brief combat used by experts. Someone recently posted why there are so many new 1911's on the market - the civilian market is being driven by CCW - not battlefield combatives. While polymer combat pistols could be more easily chopped and sold as back up guns to LEO's, we are now seeing dedicated SA guns coming on the market for CCW.
Go to war, the polymer double stack with two mags gives you over 50 rounds, the single action 1911 at best 24. Ammo resupply in the field being harder than on the street, the modern pistol is superior. That's why it's issued, and the 1911 is reserved for special situations where the environment isnt' as "target rich."
BTW, I don't remember reading that a certain famous terrorist hiding in Pakistan was shot with a pistol. Let's not make too much of it's use.
