Perhaps, but perhaps not.
While 180-250 guys with Colt's revolvers coulda made a big difference defending the Alamo that morning, the problem with handguns "winning the West" is that, after a couple of initial minor skirmishes with naive Comanches, the six-shooter had almost NO effect on casualty rates.
The problem was getting close enough to an Indian to hit one with a rifle, let alone a handgun. And Ranger Captain RIP Ford hisself, who would know better than almost anyone, put the revolver on a merely equal footing with the bow and arrow when it came to mounted combat. He did most of his own fighting with rifles.
The way you won fights out on the plains is you got within rifle range of your enemy, got off your horse, took careful aim and shot the other guy off of HIS horse. First ones to do this in a big way were the Delawares and other tribes from back east, who whupped everybody when they arrived on the plains ahead of the advancing Frontier.
Anyways, in practical terms it weren't until the advent of the '51 Colt Navy in the mid fifties that revolvers became cheap, durable and portable enough that most folks could afford one.
Birdwatcher
