View Single Post
  #7  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:19 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
Fair enough. But do you think the PT92 page should be on the Beretta 92 page? Again, I just want to be sure that whatever we do, we're consistent.
Well Taurus never actually MADE an exact 92 clone. SWD, RPB did make licensed exact clones from M.A.C. and continued to 'hold the torch' when M.A.C. dissolve and went under. Taurus is making a 'close but not exact clone' of the Beretta 92, but concurrently. Beretta isn't going anywhere and neither is Taurus.

I think a better example is the Ruger Mk II. After all a LONG time ago, Bill Ruger reverse engineered a captured NAMBU pistol in his garage, and made the "Standard" aka (the MK I, though never called that). The Mk II and III are just improvements on the MK I. I would not consider putting the Ruger MK II under the NAMBU page, even though the pistol born by cloning the Nambu in the first place. Does this example make sense?

personally I don't have strong opinions regarding Taurus, but they do make a serious attempt to stand out and make their own distinctive lines of guns, so I wouldn't mind Taurus keeping their own pages, even the 92& 99.
Reply With Quote