I find it hard to believe someone can take 6 rounds of 45 Colt and still remain standing since that round was designed to kill a horse out from under it's rider. (and will)
Obviously this depends on where and what the rounds hit for horses and people alike (and for every ordinary handgun caliber).
But in general I agree with the sentiment that shot placement is much more important than number of rounds shot. 15 rounds that miss dont count as much as one that does.
Accuracy is more important overall in this context, but having both accuracy and capacity is even better.
This is especially true in dynamic situations in which most people would be fortunate to land a fraction of their shots at all, let alone with any precision, and more shots means more opportunities and improved odds of survival.
Admittedly, civilians only rarely get involved in protracted gunfights (even a few seconds would be "protracted" in terms of ammo usage), but then again the same is only somewhat less true of the typical LEO, and relatively high capacity is a good way for both to prepare for the unlikely (if they care to).
I am reading Lee Silvas book on Wyatt Earp, and he does a section on gunfighters. Silva states that most of the old timers (including Earp), were big believers in taking just that extra, minute bit of time to correctly acquire their target, and that the man who could calmly do that would likely be the last man standing.
That's just as true today I think--first be sure to hit the guy, then hit the guy again, and repeat as necessary. At close range, however, one would probably be best served by point-shooting at least the first shot. I never thought I'd say that, but then I learned that it is possible (without being a super-talented trick shooter) to reliably hit a target, even while on the move, without using the sights. I couldn't do it before, but after working on it for a while, I can do it now (into a 4" group at 5 yards repeatably--not as good as with the sights but good enough), much to my own surprise. It only saves a tiny fraction of a second, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Along those lines, the man who fanned his revolver wildly didnt generally hit much.
I presume that you're speaking figuratively here, but as an aside I wonder whether people actually fanned their guns (much?) back then. I know that some exhibition shooters did sometimes in accomplishing spectacular feats, and that some people practiced slip-shooting, but the use of fanning in actual gunfights seems rather questionable to me.
If you don't have the confidence in yourself to get it done with 6 shots, perhaps you should practise more? Cause spray-n-pray isn't the answer...
I'm highly motivated to train all I can in order to make each shot count, but I still don't see a downside to having a few more rounds in the gun (having hundreds of rounds loaded in moon clips for the imminent zombie apocalypse notwithstanding
). I guess I like having margins whenever possible. That and reading or hearing about real life incidents in which people emptied their revolvers just to stop one person. I wouldn't want to have to reload if the bad guy's buddy tries to even the score (and immediate reprisals have happened before). And I'm not so overconfident in my skills that I think I could stop a bad guy--especially a determined bad guy--quickly with a couple of shots (it could happen if I'm really lucky, but I train to shoot fast for a reason). Note that these are kind of worst-case scenarios. Often simply brandishing a gun works wonders, and shooting it anywhere usually sends bad guys (even multiple bad guys) running. That said, worst-case scenarios are part of what being prepared is about.
