Subcompact .40 S&Ws: Glock 27 Versus Taurus Millennium Pro
The Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro 140SSP, $485, offers some better features, but we think Glock’s $641 Model 27 is still a better pistol for our needs.
Last month we tested two subcompact 9mm pistols that, based on the shared technology of polymer construction and striker-fired actions, were set to compete with the Glock Model 26. This month we take a look at Taurus’s .40 S&W Millennium Pro 140SSP, matching it against Glock’s subcompact, the GL27. The GL 27 and the Taurus pistols are almost identical to the 9mm handguns we tested previously, and we were particularly interested in how the .40s would stand up against the abuse the stouter S&W round delivers.
In the past, high-cap polymer 9mm semi-auto designs and frames rechambered for.40 S&W have not always shouldered the extra energy load too well. Structural failures sent many manufacturers back to the drawing board. Problems in polymer and steel-framed guns alike included cracked frames and slides and jumbled internal mechanisms.
Besides questions about durability, we also wanted to explore the operational differences between these two pistols. Would shooters be able to use the same techniques to ensure fast, accurate hits, or would the guns be so different that we would be forced to shoot them differently?
Here’s what we found when we tested the Glock 27, $641; and the Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro 140SSP, $485, side by side: