I picked up 2 boxes of 100s at Walmart. Wasn't much choice there and I haven't shot them before, it's always been Champs but they're gone.

If any of y'all shot 'em in your Sigma how'd it go?

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

My Beretta 92 loves them, but it's not picky about ammo.

I feel that my Sigma shouldn't either but only one way to find out.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

I shot the the UMC through my MP with no issues.

Feeds, goes bang.

Shot 50 at the range today. Man, they're pretty hot (compared to Champs). I was going to do a box but after 50 I had enough. I moved the target to 25 feet and only 3 misses out of 50 (one miss nicked the shoulder). I afraid the target got a headache, sore chest, an upset tummy and hurt shoulders.

They're pretty good rounds, I'm gonna get some more and stock 'em.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

Same here. I dont recall any issues with UMC.

I've shot these in my sigma 9mm for years and never a issue. I now shoot them in my M&P 9mm with no issues. Good ammo as far as I'm concerned.

__________________
M&P15,9MM,M66,22-A,Glock 30SF

I shot them in a CZ-75B and they fed well and were accurate.

The OP needs to learn to shoot, unless that Sigma is an even worse gun than I think it is. This load will probably group in the palm of your hand at 25 yards, firing offhand. Maybe better.

I've seen it chronographed at about 1180 FPS. I suspect that it'd do very well on such animals as coyotes. It struck me as a bargain in the 100-packs, for the price.

It's an old technology bullet - nothing fancy in terms of bonded cores, exotic jackets, etc. That said, it generally feeds well in most guns and is acceptably accurate. Penetration in gelatin was a bit short if I remember right - certainly not 12" - in a test I recall of it. But it's a decent price, quality is acceptable and it can be found somewhat readily thanks to Walmart. Works fine in 5903 from circa 1992. Around 1986 or 87 it would have been quite modern for a 9mm round.

The areas of the target (head, chest and torso) were what I aimed at so it wasn't wild shots. I'm a better shooter than what you give me credit for.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

bet you got the grouping upside down from a rope while playing solitaire? I hate posts like this. why come into someone elses thread and tell them that they cant shoot?

FWIW ive never had any trouble with the ammo either and it does usually shoot straight.

Have probably fired several thousand rounds of the UMC 115 FMC and JHP's, and just this week had a FMC with a bad primer. Tried it in several pistols, just wouldn't fire.
It is still my favorite factory ammo, all things considered.
FWIW, I thing the Winchester white box ammo is loaded hotter.

That's not real helpful, who are you to decide how well the OP can shoot? Ever owned a Sigma?

Shot 100 today, some with my PF9, my poor hand. They're pretty hot alright.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

My opinion of the man's markmanship is based on his ability to describe it, and it sounded like he was all over a silhouette target. At very close range!

Do you really want that ammo to be thought of as being grossly inaccurate, after his description? That's hardly fair to the ammo maker, and will mislead others who might want to buy the ammo.

If that load won't bounce a soup can at 25 yards from "offhand", it's probably the shooter's fault, assuming that he has a good gun. He asked what readers thought of the load, and I donated my valuable time to say that I think it's very good, especially for the money. It did tarnish in the magazine and I prefer nickled cases and higher tech loads for serious carry. But for practice and smaller animals, I think it's a wise choice.

I see quite a few posts on the Net from people who seemingly can't hit a man at ten feet, blaming the ammo. Maybe his description of the hits was unclear, and he's a better shot than it appears. My comment was based on the belief that he was hitting all over that target at close range... as he seemed to describe! I didn't want the ammo to get the blame.

Before you snipe at me, consider that his feelings aren't all that's at stake in a topic like this. I didn't set out to be mean, but good gosh... that load performed a LOT better for me than he said it'd shoot. I replied with that in mind, that readers have a better idea of what it can do.

Cut me a little slack. I have feelings, too, you know, and I think the truth is ultimately what readers need to see here.

I can understand that you got that impression and yea, I did sound like I was all over the target. I was shooting at different areas of the target looking for fresh paper to punch. I even shot at the two small circles next to the head. The accuracy was quite good.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

Thanks. I'm glad we got that cleared up. I apologize if I ruffled your feathers.

Twas ok, a round of ebeer on me.

__________________
_It was love at first shot_

Have shot UMC 9mm 115s in my PF9 and Ruger P85. They fed well and seem reasonably hot. I like the price, so I have stocked several hundred of them. Seems like a better proposition than burning up high-priced personal protection ammo at the range.

I have chrono'd the Rem-UMC and Federal Champion out of 4 guns, a 5906 (4") a 3913 (3.5") a Sig 290 (3") and a Kahr CM9 (3") ...and done a side by side out of 2 of them

They essentially are the same with the UMC being slightly faster (10 to 20 fps) (F=1013 v R=1030 in the Sig and in the 5906 F= 1092 & R=1101)

Blazer Brass and Wolf were actually slightly hotter.

I have only had a problem with then in a Ruger SR9C. All other 9mm's have loved them. The SR9C did go back to factory and upon return fed these a lot better but still had ocasional FTL. So for range ammo it's great.

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

I have a Glock 26 and these have proven very accurate.Realizing that water is not the best medium for expansion,I did find that the expansion was very good with the jacket staying in place.