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