I've shot both my Dan Wesson .357 with wadcutters in the centerfire stage and a S&W 25-2 in the 45 stage in local league matches just for the experience. The single-action triggers were just fine, both having been worked on.
It takes some work, but I've got a revolver that shoots up to my best 1911, running under an inch at 50 yards (a Ruger Redhawk) and I 've seen others. Good revolversmiths who can make that happen are vanishingly rare.
The main problem with revolvers up against pistols is it simply takes longer to cock the hammer and get back on target with one hand than it does waiting for a pistol to settle. You feel rushed, so it's just not as easy to keep pace without hurrying shots. Old timers claimed cocking the hammer actually helped them get back on target. I didn't give it enough chance to acquire the feeling that was happening. I suspect most people don't, and that's resulted in fewer good revolver shots and that, in turn, is one reason there are separate revolver matches today.
Jeff Cooper suggested a variation of the Weaver hold in which the weak hand thumb handles cocking the hammer. But while I think that could work on a bull's-eye target, the rules would not allow the spare hand's involvement.
The fact is, semi-auto mechanisms get you back on a target with greater speed and less physical effort than manual actions do in handguns, rifles, and shotguns unless you are willing to undergo some very lengthy and dedicated muscle training. (And even then, the greater muscle effort is still with you.) It's why the Garand was an advantage over the Mauser. Less time back on target means more time to place shots. Reliability and complexity matters aside, self-loading is a technical advancement.