This is not a ".44 vs .45" query.
In the era of percussion cap lock revolvers, Remington's 1858/63 series of 44s (nominal .454-inch) had an effective method of allowing the hammer to rest between chambers and caps. Colt's method to achieve a safe hammer position worked but was much less durable. When Colt created its Single Action Army series, it chose such an inefficient method to allow the hammer to rest safely that the "safe" method became hammer down on empty chamber - in effect, creating a five-shot revolver.
At last to the question. Had Colt incorporated any effective safe hammer position - safety device - with a five-shot chamber, would any sort of powerful 44 (nominal .429-inch) revolver cartridge have had sufficient popularity to survive? I specifically include Winchester's 44-40. And what might have been history had such a safety device been incorporated within Colt's six-shot cylinder configuration?
***
I ask these questions because Freedom Arms' Model 97 is a slightly more petite version of the Single Action Army with five-shot cylinder and safety device that achieves the safe hammer rest with more sophisticated method/lock work than is necessary. The result of such configuration allows this revolver to use safely smokeless powder loads that are unsafe in Single Action Armys. . . . Perhaps part of an answer might be that black powder allowed safe use of six-shot cylinder's chamber wall thickness? But that does not really address the hammer safe position issue.