The web site you provided got their information from uninformed collectors, and me before I had completed sufficient research to provide the information in my previous post, in fact some of the illustrations were provided by me, although I did not know at the time I was providing them for use in that website.
You're not the only person that prefers using the 1874 year as a bases for the meat can, and other equipment, that was recommended for trial in 1875. I think by using that year it is proof positive to many collectors that the troops involved in the Spring 1876 campaign were issued these meat cans. The three problems with referring to it as meat can model 1874: it was recommended for trial and not yet a standard pattern, was never adopted as a standard pattern, and as I have previously reported the Infantry Equipment Board recommended the meat can for trial in 1875. Call it what you will 1874 simply has no relation to the meat can, other than the Board was ordered to convene in 1874.
I have experimented with several ways of using the terms type, and pattern. And in fact do refer to these various meat cans as you suggest, but simply stating a type doesn't provide the interested collector, and etc. with a year that the item was adopted for manufacture, or actually manufactured. In fact I'm pretty sure the "type" descriptions used in the website you cited, was taken from a post I contributed to U.S. Mlilitaria Forum years ago. There are two reasons for using pattern. First collectors are used to the term, and the way in which the Army specified material items was through patterns, usually tagged and sealed as the "standard pattern" for the purpose that what would later be provided in written and illustrated specifications. So the different "types" as you prefer to call them were manufactured to the patterns approved by the Chief of Ordnance. I can certify that the Chief of Ordnance was directly involved in personally approving all pattern or model changes. So the term pattern applies to the various types of meat cans manufactured by the Ordnance Department until 1898 when it was found necessary to provide written descriptions or specifications, to the various contractors. To confuse the matter for people researching the original correspondence the various officers that wrote the documents used the term "model" informally, when there was no official model designation, but wanted to describe a particular pattern. So the use of the terms pattern and model were interchangeable, except for later when a "Model" was designated as part of the nomenclature. I don't recall the use of the term "type" in any correspondence related to field mess equipment, however the term "style" came into use during WWII to designate a variation to a specification, or a similar item adopted in the same year as another item. You may notice that I use the term pattern with the "p" in lower case to indicated that I'm using it informally, and it is not an official designation.
Something I neglected to mention previously is that the responsibility for the procurement of field equipment was transferred to the Quartermaster General in August 1918. Rock Island Arsenal's manufacturing equipment was transferred to the Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot in 1920, however the decision had been made that JQMD would not manufacture any metal field equipment, and intended to contract for the equipment whenever necessary, and in fact during the emergency of 1941-45 JQMD contracted for canteens, cups, meat cans, and utensils. Jeffersonville Depot did occasionally do mechanical work on these items to test various changes, and had a laboratory that provided testing.
