I will post photos soon. The obvious details on the very newest model are the XR3 grip frame - supposedly the same as a Colt (? is that correct) as was used on pre-1962 Rugers.
These newest models also do not have a lock in the grip frame. You can almost miss the groove that is carved into the grip frame since it looks like someone slipped with a dremel. In my opinion this "additional feature" was poorly thought out, and compromises the original Ruger design principles. You could take a Vaquero and add this feature if you are willing to cut the channel and carefully fit the pawl extension. In my opinion too much trial and error fitting is required - that is always a sign that you have an unsuitable design.
The main point as explained by cadillo is to withdraw the pawl completely away from the ratchet face. However, the hammer spring is weakest when the hammer is down. That is just where the pawl must be cammed backwards. The pawl extension grabs onto the groove that has been dremeled into the grip frame. There is not much leverage at that point, so they have increased the hammer spring weight way too far to be enjoyable. It is not a matter of ignition reliability.
If you have a copy of the Kuhnhausen book, look near the back where the operation of the Power Custom free spin pawl is discussed. The PC pawl accomplishes the same thing as this newest Vaquero pawl, except that the PC pawl rides along the inside of its groove in the frame. In my opinion, the PC pawl is designed correctly if you want your gun set up that way. If I decided to install free spin, I would definitely use the Power Custom pawl.
Personally, I don't like it at all and am in the process of installing a standard pawl. The retention plunger does a good job of lining up the chambers with the gate, so how would a free spinning cylinder improve your loading?
Carry_Up
