[Headspace]

Yes, I would correct the mistake and explain the differences. A Second Model Hand Ejector is different from a 45 ACP H E Model of 1917. A Python is different from an L frame, etc.

Why not correct them? Is it acceptable to allow the ignorance to continue and spread? I think not.

Kevin

I agree, and there's nice ways of doing it. Someone miss-call one of mine, I might look at it cockeyed and say "yeah, it does look a little like (whatever he called it), but it's not. It's a (whatever it actually is)" and then explain the similarities that make it look like what he thought it was, and then the differences. I might also say something like "I'd sure like to have one of (whatever he thought it was), but never found one in decent condition".

The casual gun nut sees similarities like a full underlug or a half-moon front sight or no extractor rod shroud and calls it the only model he knows that has that feature. One of my pet peeves is someone seeing a Patridge front sight and calling it a Partridge. I laugh and tell them there's no bird sitting on my gun barrel and then tell them why it's called a Patridge, just like the Baughman ramp has a history behind it too.

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the pre-war guns or their modern classic versions, like the ones in your post above. My knowledge, what there is of it, starts about 1947 and ends around 1982-85, as those are the ones I like best, but I appreciate learning the older ones. Unfortunately, my mental hard drive is full, needs defragging and runs too slow to retain much new info these days.