imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > imfdb

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:17 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The failed state of California
Posts: 2,139
Default Combine pages for Taurus Model 65 and 66?

If the 66 is just a 65 with adjustable sights, wouldn't it stand to reason that they both share a page? Other pistols with comparable superficial differences (e.g., the USP and USP Tactical) share pages, so why not these?
__________________
"The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention which has been praised and denounced... served hero and villain alike... and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history."

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” - Alfred North Whitehead
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:26 PM
Greg-Z Greg-Z is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 125
Default

We have separate pages for S&W Mod 10 and Mod 15 that are the same except for the sights. I think we should look at the situation with Taurus 65/66 in the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:14 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The failed state of California
Posts: 2,139
Default

Then I would think it would be pertinent to combine the S&W 10 and 15 into one page, too. Guns with far more significant differences than just the sights share pages (e.g., the SIG P220 and P239), so why is a different standard applied with these (and probably other) revolvers?
__________________
"The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention which has been praised and denounced... served hero and villain alike... and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history."

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” - Alfred North Whitehead
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2019, 02:13 PM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,518
Default

If I had a chance to redo everything, I probably would. While I might be able to justify separate pages for the Model 10 and 15, there's no good reason why we have separate pages for the Model 10/64, Model 15/67, and Model 19/66 if the only difference is blued vs stainless steel.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

Last edited by funkychinaman; 01-22-2019 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:39 PM
StanTheMan StanTheMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: AR, USA
Posts: 112
Default

Actually the Model 10 and Model 15 - along with most all the other K-frames - have numerous differences from each other besides just the sights - some of are visual (tapered/bull barrels, socketed/shrouded eject rods, cylinder lengths) and some aren't (the duty and target guns have slightly different actions) - As such, they aren't nearly identical pieces and indeed are just different enough to not combine together. Do that and you may as well combine all the K-frames into one page. Which you can do certainly but honestly I don't see the need - At best it does nothing, at worst I think would be counter-intuitive given over time we have made great pains to be more specific and discriminating on gun IDs and gun pages rather than less. FCM I think has it much closer though with combining the stainless/blued variants as that is indeed the only difference between those 'models'. But like said they're already there, so.. well I don't see the harm in just leaving 'em.

As for the Taurus' there likewise are probably other differences between the two that aren't obvious, but I'm not certain as I haven't been exposed to Taurus' much. But if not.. then I suppose you could conceivably pair them together.

The thing with the HKs and the Smith autos as I understand is that we do group guns within a model family/series - But that doesn't necessarily mean we group different models proper in one page. The USP and USP Tactical are more variant distinctions rather than proper separate models, same with the blued 3914/5904 and stainless 3913/5906 of the S&W, etc. At least that's how I see it, even though they are all technically different models. Even then though we have exceptions that fly in the face of that - I think the the older Smith autos are split between blued and stainless versions. And of course mentioning the SIGs there's glaring contradiction there - a SIG 229 is certainly not anywhere identical to a 220, even though they're of the same 'series'. And there are other glaring exceptions elsewhere. Bah, like anything else it just seems to be a couple/few loose standards applied particularly to each thing on a case-by-case basis. But I guess at some point that fun train would have to stop somewhere, heh.

Anyway back to the post - Unless someone who knows Taurus' can speak well.. I don't see the harm in leaving things as they are, though I suppose it makes little if any difference one way or the other. At least in that instance. The precedent it might set though.. well guess we burn that bridge when we get to it. As if we didn't have enough with the new folks pestering us about changing other mostly otherwise pointless and harmless things on the site.
__________________
"..If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you - It would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- The Dalai Lama

Last edited by StanTheMan; 01-22-2019 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-30-2019, 11:01 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,505
Default

Personally, I agree with the idea of merging them. Another example (to keep this topic related to Taurus pistols): The Taurus PT99 is just an adjustable sight version of the PT92, and it is on the PT92 page instead of a separate entry.

I also agree with the idea of merging the S&W Mod 10 and Mod 15 pages - I had forgotten that this was ever done. I guess it goes to show how frequently page separation and grouping has historically been at the whim of certain individuals.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.