Hello. I personally much prefer the Browning HP to the Beretta 92, but this is subjective. I like simple guns with few parts and in that regard, the HP soundly "beats" the Model 92. Having said that, the Berettas seem to work pretty darned good.
In fact, I prefer the BHP to any other semi, although the longslide Trojan by STI is a very, very close runner up!
"Better" and "best" will depend upon the person giving you their opinion so I'll just state what I've observed with HPs over the past 30 years in terms of what you asked.
Reliable: Very. Since the MkII, BHP reliability with JHPs went way up in most cases. Current guns feed about anything and do it slickly.
Accurate: If anything, the current MkIII guns have been consistent, i.e.: the best is not that much better than the worst, but all of them should group at least under 3" @ 25 yards. In my experience, you can find the loads a particular HP "likes" and get 2" groups at the same distance; I have to use a rest to do it.
Comfortable: Most folks remark that the HP's enduring strong point is its feeling right and its pointability. I know that's subjective, but it must be a general consensus as so many believe that; I do.
A negative is the great potential for hammer bite. For MOST, but not all, simply bobbing the hammer spur to the second lateral serration will solve this. So will adding a C&S Type I ring hammer.
A few require either the extended tang and/or the thinning of the hammer's shank as done by Novak's and Wickmann and perhaps others.
Sights: I find the fixed sights on the HP very usuable right out of the box. I do prefer the fixed sight picture provided by Beretta's 92, but do find the HP fixed sight very usuable. While on that topic, I have had some MkIII sights replaced with Novak's fixed sights and while they are "better," I note no increased ability in grouping, either at speed or in bullseye. They do add a certain panache, however, at least in my opinion.
Durability: Yes, they are, but with a caveat: They are NOT the vehicle in which to test loads beyond the 9mm envelope. In other words, with certain "protections," I find the current HPs most capable of handling +P loads on a regular basis, but this is not the pistol in which to try handloads beyond the manuals or SMG ammo. I forget the issue, but "American Rifleman" did a 5000 rnd test in a MkIII using 9mm 115 gr +P JHP and noted no problems.
I personally use 18.5lb Wolff conventional springs in my HPs as well as Buffer Technology's buff. Some discount the need for such, but I don't see how cushioning the smack between the slide and the frame can do anything but help and I've noted no functioning issues.
The trigger pulls on quite a few of the current HPs are not the best. However, I consider this just part of the deal on a HP, and good trigger jobs can be had from competent 'smiths. Expect a trigger pull that's clean and breaks at 4.5 to 5lbs.
Unlike the Beretta, the Hi Power comes with a magazine disconnect. Some can live with them; I do not and routinely remove them from any and all HPs I own. This is an individual choice.
I think you'll agree that there are more aftermarket parts and custom work offered for the BHP than the Beretta and you can spend just about as much as you want in making a fine gun "better" or at least more beautiful.
Here's a picture of a MkIII that has Novak sights installed as well as the Cylinder & Slide Type I ball hammer mentioned above. It has skateboard tape on the grip strap and Butler Creek authorized copies of the Spegel stocks. Right-side thumb lever on the thumb safety is removed.
This MkIII has the factory sights and the bobbed hammer mentioned previously as well as Spegel black, checkered delrin stocks and no skateboard tape. The right-side ambi safety lever's been removed simply because I don't like 'em.
So, that's my opinion only, and hope it's of use.
Best.
