I have to say this is probably me putting two things together that I love which, like as not, have absolutely nothing to do with one another. But I couldn't resist posting here to ask FPW himself.

In the fifth book of the Repairman Jack series, Jack gives up his favourite sidearm (the infamous Semmerling) for a gun that his supplier (Abe) thinks is better for him.

In the fifth book of the James Bond series, James gives up his favourite sidearm (the beretta) for a gun that his supplier (M, or Q if you want to be specific) thinks is better for him.

Coincidence, FPW? I know a lot of people, being Bond movie buffs instead of Bond novel buffs, would miss the reference, but it's something I noticed on my most recent re-read.

I don't know if there is anything to this or not. I think the main reason Paul decided to do away with the Semmerling is that, contrary to earlier beliefe, it was discovered that the sidearm was not a semi-automatic weapon but a manual repeating double action pistol. This posed some issue for Jack as manually loading each shot could cause some problems in a situation where rapid fire was a necessity.

Of course there may be more to it, but only Paul knows for sure.

Welcome to the board by the way. I see it is your third post, but I haven't seen ya before.

Tony is correct. While a Semmerling is a nice weapon, a semi-auto fits Jack's needs much better.

And add my welcome to the board.

Absolutely. I'm just wondering if it was a coincidental timing, or if he put it off one book (or some such thing) to coincide with his Dr No... so to speak.

And thanks! I'm still a bit of a newbie but I'm getting settled.

I don't know if there is anything to this or not. I think the main reason Paul decided to do away with the Semmerling is that, contrary to earlier beliefe, it was discovered that the sidearm was not a semi-automatic weapon but a manual repeating double action pistol. This posed some issue for Jack as manually loading each shot could cause some problems in a situation where rapid fire was a necessity.

The best example would be in Conspiracies. It made for a great suspenseful scene though.

One thing I've found, your question may get answered by a few of us, then you may find an answer by The Man himself. A very cool thing indeed.

After reading through the boards for a while, I can definitely say that FPW is the most active author (with his fans, that is) that I've seen.

Well, it's like this: I gave Jack the Semmerling in The Tomb because it was such a cool weapon and I never intended to come back to him. But as I got into the series I realized that a signature weapon was very un-Jack and counterproductive if you want to remain invisible. Same with driving around in a Corvair. So the Semmerling (and Ralph the Corvair) had to go.

As for Bond, I was never much of a fan of the films (a little too self-consciously arch to be taken seriously) and so I never read the books. I do like the last 2 though.

I love the Bond books Dan. I am at the point in the series where it is just a collection of short stories, For Your Eyes Only i think.

I just love Bond. No other character has the capacity for instantaneous destruction as Bond. It is like he is most at home in a scenario where he needs to escape, but does not care one whit about collateral damage to those around him. The end of Quantum of Solace was a good example of that!

Thanks for the reply FPW! I didn't really think it would be the case, but I just had to ask.

Turanthor: The books are so much better than the movies, but they are really dated (some of the completely politically incorrect phrasology is prime evidence of that); that said, I really love the movies (in their own campy way), and I think perhaps that my love of Jack is an offshoot of my love for the real Bond - that of the novels, not the movies. Though the "book Bond" has been shown a lot more in the more recent films.