As a range gun or a collectors piece, they're great. As a carry/home-defense weapon, you could do a lot better, especially if you don't plan on investing in some gunsmith work out of the box. There are many more modern designs that have surpassed the BHP in the reliability/durability department (Glock 19, M&P, P30). And I know there are going to be people on here who say "well I've had mine for XX number of years and it's never once malfunctioned." All I can say is good for you. However, go on M4Carbine.net and look at the Training AAR section and count how many pictures of industry professionals you see using BHP's. If you can find just one, let me know.
Per Massad Ayoob:
"There is, however, one other shortcoming with the 9mm Browning. The P-35 is not the most rugged of 9mm pistols. It was designed back in the '20s, remember, before using submachine gun ammo in pistols became the military paradigm, and before today's high-pressure self-defense loads. The gun being slim, the parts are relatively small and therefore relatively fragile. In addition, many pistolsmiths consider the Browning's parts comparatively soft in virtually every incarnation of the gun.
"From Venezuela to Great Britain, I've seen quantities of broken Brownings in government arsenals whose slides and frames were cracked by the brutal hammering of 9x19 NATO ammo. +P and +P+ loads also seem to be contraindicated. Listen to Bill Laughridge, who said to me, 'Tell your readers in all caps, DON'T USE +P IN HI-POWERS! It's been my experience that even a few magazines of +P will upset the locking lugs.'"
