ilbob,
For the longest time--and the entire time I was in uniformed service--virtually the entire military snubbed their special operations troops. Even the Air Force snubbed their legendary pararescuemen/parajumpers (PJs) even though the only thing standing between a stay in the Hanoi Hilton and freedom was oftentimes a single PJ.
In the Navy, UDT and SEALs were literally persona non grata, and the Army praised their Airborne Rangers, but crapped on their Special Forces (Green Berets) any time they could.
The exception was the Marine Corps, whose attitude has always been "every Marine is an elite soldier." But at times, even the Corps would deal dirt to their recon troops.
Such soldiers, or "operators" are trained to think independently of command in order to survive and succeed. This "independent" thinking goes directly against the mentality and tradition upheld by ring-knocker officers, admirals and generals.
As of late, the value of special operations has been seen and utilized, but the ring-knockers still don't like them very much.
By the time the first one is downed you need to already be downing the next or retreating. That means you need a decisive shot they don't see coming, not numerous rounds in arms and legs.
And you know this because you've done it?
Again, I don't think--no, I KNOW--you don't understand what can often happen on a non-traditional battlefield.
Never discount the value and worthiness of any weapon, let alone a handgun.
A lone handgun against an entire army? That's a ridiculous question.
Handguns against an army? Fair question for those who know, understand and have experience in tactics involving "weapons trade" as we used to call it.
Jeff