Just one point, the FN is hammer fired, not striker fired. Its hammer simply isn’t visible from the rear of the slide.

Some other comparison notes:

I think the trigger is a little better than the FN. The steel mags are definitely thinner than the FN, making the grip thinner too, which is noticeable in the hand. Think the mag release button needs to stick out a bit farther, since for me it’s in too far to reach with my thumb without moving my hand around a little on the grip. The FN, with its big button that sticks out quite a way, is better for me, but OTOH, the release takes less force on the Ruger (may be due to the polymer on polymer on the FN). Definitely dislike the Ruger takedown compared to the FN. Unfortunately, you need a tool (the manual recommends using the mag baseplate) to push the takedown lever out a bit as it has an anti-rotation pin that mates up with a hole in the frame, and it’s too stiff to push out without a tool. The FN takedown release slide lever is much easier and quicker. Also, on the Ruger, you have to remember to push the barrel all the way back during reassembly, otherwise you can’t rotate the lever back. Previously noted that the slide stop lever on the Ruger is quite stiff, and not helped by being so small, and the safety lever tends to be in the way. The Ruger is a bit longer than the FN, longer than just the .1” difference in barrel length, but narrower and not quite as tall. The FN barrel and chamber are chromed, while the Ruger is just nitrided. Think I also prefer that the rear of the FN chamber and bolt face are fully enclosed by the slide, unlike the Ruger where the rear is the chamber isn’t covered, in fact, there is a cutout in the slide to be able to see part of the case rim as a visual loaded chamber indicator. Also prefer the FN pin-type loaded chamber indicator, which provides a tactile indicator in addition to the visual. On the plus side, the Ruger doesn’t have the magazine disconnect, which annoyed me about the FN. The obvious desire to keep the slide weight down means that there are lots of openings for dirt to get into. Aside from the cutout above the barrel, there is an opening in the rear of the slide behind the hammer, and the election port cutout is fairly large with a fairly large gap between the chamber and the inside of the slide (large enough that you can see the internals in the frame underneath the barrel). The FN seems more like a pistol designed for military/combat duty, while the Ruger seems like a commercial duty pistol.

I went out and shot my FN and Ruger side by side. To be honest, I like shooting the FN a little better. The Ruger seemed a little more snappy to me, and I didn’t care as much for the slimmer grip. The wider FN felt better in my hand. The Ruger also had a more rearward ejection, so when I was shooting SS197, I was getting pelted with cases bouncing off the walls of the shooting stall. With the same ammo, the FN cases were bouncing slightly forward and not on me. The slide release on the Ruger did loosen up a little from being stiff out of the box, but I still think it’s too small, and the 1911 style extended safety lever gets in the way a bit when trying to release it with my thumb. The FN slide release is much better. Also loading the Ruger mags was a bit more difficult because of their decision to put little detents in the feedlips where the case groove is. I suppose they are there to prevent the rounds from sliding forward, but the practical effect when loading is that you have to load the rounds straight from the top. If the round is a little forward and the rim is in front of the detent, you have to slide the round out forward and try again, because you can’t simply slide the round all the way back. I did like the Ruger front FO sight. Trigger and accuracy seemed to be on a par with each other; I didn’t have any real preference of one over the other, except for recoil for which I preferred the FN. Reliability on both was 100% on mine with the limited amount of SS196 and SS197 that I used. Overall, I don’t think I’d trade my FN for a Ruger, but I’m sure the price difference is going to drive a lot of people to the Ruger no matter what.

One further note is that closing the slide on an empty Ruger mag seemed to shave a noticeable amount of polymer from the top of the follower.

Thanks for the review. I am happy with my FN. Just hoping the price of ammo will come down.

Me personally I prefer the FN. But if all I had was the ruger wouldn't bother me. But the one hope I had for the ruger was that optic mounting would be a huge plus since I feel pathetic now shooting a pistol without a red dot. And getting one on the FN is a royal PIA. But sadly ruger has not yet (nor the aftermarket that I can see) offered a mounting plate for a red dot that has any possibility of being reliable (like an RMR or Aimpoint).

I stumbled upon a FN for $850 a couple of months ago, if not for having a PS90 already I wouldn't have really been too interested. That being said, if I just wanted a 5.7 for the hell of it, it would be hard to turn down the Ruger.

I like the Ruger. Now shot both. Never could cozy up to the Five-seveN; chunky ergonomics, weird thumb safety placement, chintzy polymer that's high on feeling plasticky.

In this two-dog race, the FN just doesn't feel as if it's anywhere close to being a 10% better firearm than the Ruger, let alone hypothetically feeling like it's twice the gun as reflective of the huge price difference between the two.

I have the FN. I really like it. I'm looking forward to the new Speer Gold Dots.

That being said, (and looking into the future), I like the concept of having a takedown PCC in 5.7 that utilizes the same mags as my pistol.

But alas, I don't have the Ruger pistol and the Ruger 5.7 PCC is only a pipe dream.