It's James Bond; and you've really got to be made out of solidified stupid to come to any other conclusion. Non Bond (I never played RDR myself and can't be fucked to scroll up to learn the character's name) may be a crack shot, but he is armed with frontier era weaponry. That means that, immaterial of his level of skill, there are sharp limits on his weapon's range, power and accuracy. Bond has displayed capability with rifles boasting a potential range far in excess of what Non Bond is capable of. In a battle between the guy with high powered assault weaponry, versatile explosives and rifles accurate over several kilometers and a guy sporting a Remington #1, where do you think the smart money goes? Bond's weapons also have far greater utility, faster and less frequent reloads and no end of other advantages. Add to that the level of bullshit gadgetry that Bond has at his disposal which includes, but is not limited to: bullet proof clothing, cars than can bring down a tank and a fully functional helicopter that fits in a fucking suitcase. One guy on a horse does not stand much of a chance. Also: where the fuck is this "Bond isn't a good shot" nonsense coming from. Do I really need to start pulling examples out of the Bond cannon to disprove that? Bond can shoot a padlock off with an assault weapon from across a huge room whilst diving backwards onto a conveyor belt. He out dueled Scaramanga, the greatest gunman in the entire Bond cannon. How much more evidence do you need? Bond is also well spoken and British, making him clearly the superior choice.