The James Bond: 007 Role Playing Game was written back in the early 1980s, and while it remains an excellent engine for espionage roleplaying, some of the mechanics are getting a bit like Roger Moore in A View to a Kill — a bit too long in the tooth.
One thing I’ve noted is that the firearms damage ratings, much like the structure points for electronic do-dads and performance modifiers for modern vehicles, do not take into account well the serious improvements in technology. I thought I would address the first in this post.
There’s one way to correct for this: hit the interwebz and find out what the ammunition the character is using has for muzzle energy. For instance, most modern 9mm is going to be running in the 330-360 ft/lbs. range. Using the Q Manual as a guide, you’ll see that most 9mm firearms of service weapon size (4″ to 5″ barrels) should be throwing lead with a DC of G. The Walther PPK in either .32 or .380 would have an E. Both 10mm and .40S&W run in the H range, etc… +P and other hot loads push this even further, but should lower the S/R by at least one due to recoil, and depending on the weapon, might increase the JAM rating, as the weapon takes a heavier beating than was intended.
For instance, running .32 +P through a Kel-Tec P32 is pretty inadvisable. It might do alright for the occasional firefight, but a steady diet with kill the weapon pretty fast. You might kick the JAM from a 98+ to a 97+ and add a GM Information tag that the weapons suffers a malfunction on 99 and 100, instead of just 100. Another good rule of thumb is that if the pistol has longer than a 3″ barrel, bump the DC up one. This holds pretty true for rifles, as well.
Now if game balance is your thing, you might find a close analogue to a weapon being used in the Q Manual or Black Campbell’s own Q2 Manual (and yeah, you’ll find it pirated on other sites…it’s my work) and riff on that. I’m planning a new gear manual in the future that addresses some of the changes the world has wrought on this venerable game system.
The Black Campbell 
17 May, 2019 at 17:53
I think you’re missing the real differences between self defense loads from 1985 and 2019; bullet design and what the bullet is designed to do. In the mid 1980s when JB was written, the Wincheser Silvertip was the standard for autoloaders and a lead hollow point or semi-jacketed hollow point was standard for revolvers. The bullets were designed without an eye to effective terminal performance because there were no standards.
After the 1986 Miami shootout (read SA Ed Mireles’ book – it is excellent!), the FBI developed test protocols for what they believed would be an effective bullet (note, the penetration in ballistic gel do not correlate to a similar penetration in human tissue). From this, every company that wants to be taken seriously has produced ammunition that can meet or exceed these standards.
Muzzle energy is a cheap yardstick, but it really doesn’t work. A 9mm standard pressure 124gr HST is far more effective than some +P FMJ or a design from the early 80s to mid 90s…because it is more efficient, expands more reliably, and expands in a more controlled manner to reach the desired penetration.
Likewise, a round like the Underwood 9mm Extreme Defender, which does not expand, but is barrier blind and shows similar massive wound channels regardless of what it’s fired through in its standard pressure loading doesn’t have an extremely high muzzle energy, but the delivered damage is mind bending.
All this said, pretty much all service handgun loads, if they are modern bullets, should do about the same, within a margin of perhaps +/- 5% or so.
17 May, 2019 at 18:57
I don’t think I am. If fact, I think that was the point of the post: better design and manufacture of ammunition.
17 May, 2019 at 19:07
All I saw you talk about was muzzle energy, not bullet design.