While trying to browse through all of the postings in this thread I had to keep reminding myself of the original question ...
So, addressing only the original question, I find myself in general agreement with the early comments posted by
rcmodel &
Jeff White.
I started my LE career carrying a M66 .357 Magnum revolver on-duty and either a similar 6-shot .357 or a Colt Commander (7+1) off-duty. I was later issued a 5903.
After carrying various issued pistols over the course of my career (and various personally-owned pistols and revolvers off-duty) I finished my career while carrying a 7+1 capacity .45 pistol and mostly carrying a 5-shot J-frame off-duty. This was after carrying pistols with mag capacities of 15, 14, 12, 9, & 8 rds at various times.
Although I sometimes carry a 9mm pistol as a retirement weapon (mag capacities of my 9's run from 7 - 10 rds), and even less often a .40 S&W weapon (mag capacities of my .40's also run 7-10 rds), my most commonly carried retirement CCW is a 5-shot J-frame.
I'm not losing sleep worrying about capacity.
Yes, there are some occasional instances where my activities and inclination influence me to carry one of the higher capacity 9/.40 pistols.
Yes, as well as I can shoot a revolver I can often shoot a pistol better. My training & practice with both platforms continues in retirement, though ... even if it's somewhat less than when I was working as a firearms instructor ... and I'm satisfied with my skill levels when it comes to shooting a revolver.
It's all about personal risk assessment, which is not only situational but includes assessing my skills and abilities with whatever weapon is being selected and carried.
My experience, training, skills and needs do not make me feel ill-equipped or ill-prepared when carrying a 5 (or 6) shot revolver.
Yes, if I were still working I wouldn't want to carry a 5-shot revolver as my primary, even when working my plainclothes assignment.
I would, however, have comfortably carried a 6 or 7-shot medium frame revolver as a plainclothes weapon or even an 8-shot revolver for uniform duty.
Personally, I suspect that some folks who carry pistols with large mag capacities may be prone to substitute mag capacity for quality and frequency of training and personal skills maintenance.
So, FWIW, I'm one of those middle aged folks who do not feel a good revolver is obsolete for civilian (LE & non-LE) defensive application ... and prefer to place my emphasis more on experience, training, skills development & maintenance and mental focus/mindset.
I select my personal defensive weapons according to my anticipated needs, activities and lifestyle ... not the other way around ... and I use common sense and risk assessment.
Some folks might well feel that revolvers are obsolete and inherently less capable of serving as modern defensive weapons. That's their opinion and their choice.
Anyway, some folks shoot pistols better than revolvers, so the capacity issue might ultimately have less importance than them being able to safely, accurately and effectively shoot a pistol better than a DA revolver.
Why do some folks just have to take umbrage at the choices of other folks when it comes to choosing a lawful defensive weapon?
Are some folks just that insecure in their own choices (and abilities) that they require validation from everyone else, or they feel compelled to follow along with whatever is popular with everyone else?
Are some folks still carrying a rabbit's foot for a good luck charm? (Remember when they were sold in different colors on a keychain in the local five & dime?
)
Are there a lot of folks who simply buy into the talisman effect?
They don't feel safe unless they're carrying enough 'firepower' for a combat patrol once their feet hit the floor as they get out of bed?
It's just a handgun, folks ...