Ok, this thread has gone on for 4 pages and there are lots of points made. Many of them good points.
But the bottom line is that most gun-buffs get very concentrated on guns and gear (which not not a bad thing) but forget that in any fight the victory will go to the better fighter no mater what tools he has. You can't beat good luck and get around bad luck, but you can't make luck. You CAN make skill and you should.
In most cases of defense outside of open warfare where you are facing a lot of enemies at one time, a SA revolver is going to be just as good as an high capacity auto if the shooter knows how to move and has a high degree of skill as a marksman, because in the largest percentage of shootings, the first hit determines who's going to win. Not all, but those cases where the one hit first still wins are usually the same cases where the better warrior is unlucky and gets hit first, but because he's got the skills and the MINDSET he still wins.
Like so many posts here, in fact most of them, the focus is on the gun and not on the man. This is the wrong mindset. Focus on the man and learn to fight. In fights shooting is about 2% of the equation. 98% is the man, using cover, concealment and movement correctly. It's like hunting. The bullet in in flight only a short fraction of a second for most hunts but you may spend the whole day using concealment and movement to get the shot. Fighting is just like that! It's the hunter that makes the difference, not his super modern fancy gun.
Just consider this:
Many men, myself included, have killed many head of game with revolvers I have done so with SA revolvers about 14 times, and DA revolvers about 25 more.
I have never fired 2 shots at any game with a SA revolver. Not one time! Every time I have fired at a deer, elk bear or buffalo I killed it with one shot. 100% of the time so far.
Why would shooting an enemy be any different if my tactics are good?
I am not going to be blazing away at someone who has a "better" gun and exchanging fire if I use my tactics correctly. I am going to seek cover and conceal myself and wait for my opportunity. I'd do the same if I had as SA Colt 45 or an AK 47, or anything else for that matter. If I use combat tactics correctly I should shoot 1 shot per bad guy.
Is that delusional?
Not near as much as TV and "experts" seem to tell you. In fact, in real fights that's USUALLY the way it works if one man has the training he should have and the other doesn't.
The blazing shootouts fall into 2 categories.
#1 bad luck (again no training can deliver you from this and your weapon will not matter. Hathcock has a large bounty on his head in Vietnam and the NVA could not collect it but the AmTrack he was riding on hit a mine. There is no defense from bad luck.
#2 combatants on both sides that don't understand how to fight. This is pretty common.
In the cases, nearly ALL the cases, where one combatant is well trained and skilled at shooting you will not hear much. Why? Because the skilled man ended it in a VERY short time and fired very few shots.
This is far more common than you think. But gets very little press coverage.
Even in open warfare, this kind of action is not uncommon and it ends fast.
Would I choose a SA revolver as my standard carry. No. But I am quite skilled with my SA Ruger and I am sure that I could,m should I desire to. It's large and fairly heavy and I have more compact guns so I do not carry my SA as my day to day gun. But not because it would be sub-standard in a fight.
In police work or military deployments I would never choose an SA because I EXPECT to fight and because I EXPECT to fight more than 1 man at the same time. When I was a Marine I carried a 1911A1 and when I worked for DOD I carried a S&W M58 when I was sent to central and south America.
I could reload the S&W far faster than I can reload my Ruger Super Blackhawk, but in the cases where I needed to reload (3 of them) I had time to do so and I only had loose rounds in my right front pants pocket. I am 100% sure in those cases, if I'd had my SA revolver, I would have been just fine.
For my life as a civilian I would have no gripes about my SA other than it's size. Many other guns are "better' because in a few cases the slow reload is going to be a danger, but those cases are actually fairly rare in civilian life. I do carry "better" guns, but the idea that a man with a SA is "unarmed" is the idea of a fool.