Empty your mag into them and then duck inside a doorway. They’ll fire a few shots in panic and bug out.
Hell, the shooter was probably out the back door five seconds after he finished that first burst.
Five targets. The homeowner hit five (moving?) targets while the home invaders didn’t hit theirs. Both sides were firing under the same conditions. Bullets were flying in both directions. Muzzle flashes, with sonic booms bouncing off the walls. Firing one round in an enclosed space can be deafening, and will definitely get the ol’ adrenalin flowing. Too much adrenalin will cause muscles to shake (aka Buck fever) uncontrollably.
I don’t know what kind of practicing you, or the homeowner, have done, but I’ve practiced and competed in Bowling Pins Shoots. Five bowling pins set twenty-five feet from the shooters. Practice involved hitting the five pins. Competition involved clearing the pins from the table in the shortest period of time. And that’s without multiple intruders firing at the competitors. Practice is fun. Firefights can be deadly.
FYI - not me (attention - depicts shooting sport)
If someone is shooting at you with an AK, your first instinct is going to be to get the hell out of the line of fire. Shooting back is secondary and more likely a “spray and pray” action than aimed fire. If Flacco had the drop on the invaders, it wouldn’t surprise me that they all missed. Call me suspicious but 25 years in law enforcement makes me think this was not a random attack. In most home invasions I’m familiar with, the house was targeted because the bad guys had reason to believe there was going to be something valuable inside. Sometimes it was legitimately obtained goods - jewelry, guns, cash from a business or something. In the vast majority of cases it was drugs and/or money from selling drugs.
Like I’ve been saying, this situation involved bad shooting (the homeowner) and really bad shooting (the home invaders).
Firing dozens of rounds to hit five man-sized targets? That are in the same room with you? With a rifle? That’s bad shooting.
All of those reasons explain why there was bad shooting. But they don’t turn bad shooting into good shooting.
Which posters have military experience besides Alessan?
Results matter. Hitting 5 outta 5 targets is good shooting. Hitting 5 outta 5 targets who are shooting at you is great shooting. This wasn’t a violent video game, or a Hollywood movie, or even a live-fire exercise. This was a life-or-death firefight, and the homeowner deserves a lot more credit than you’re willing to give to anyone who used a firearm to defend themselves.
Q: Did it ever come out what the homeowner was shooting? There is an old Youtube video R Lee Ermy did about AR vs AK. Sure, he was biased as hell, but at the ending he made a point. Firing an AK on auto creates a terrific climb that makes aiming difficult. AK47 versus M16 - R. Lee Ermey - YouTube
Was the home owner’s AK full auto?
Doubtful, or the story would be about his arrest for owning an illegal firearm. Or about how they chose the wrong guy by attacking someone licensed to own automatic weapons.
Hitting anything while being shot at from close range is amazing shooting. So much so that I expect the homeowner had some advantage not mentioned. Like being prepared and waiting, having actual cover while the attackers didn’t, or being able to shoot the intruders as they made it past some choke point.
Bullshit.
This has nothing to do with what you imagine my political views are.
Hitting five out of five targets is impressive shooting if you do it in five shots. Hitting five out of five targets is bad shooting if it takes you twenty-five shots to do it.
They key isn’t so much how many shots it took to hit something, they key is hitting anything while being shot at, from close distance, by multiple people, while not in a prepared position. To the point that I think there is parts of the story missing
Credit is due where credit is due. Hitting five out of five targets who are shooting AT YOU is still great shooting. The homeowner defended himself. With a firearm.
Fox News comments? And “think”? *Non sequitur.
*
Here’s another link:
Soldiers in combat expend a hundred to 1000 rounds per kill, mostly just covering fire. My Dad was a real WW2 combat vet and he related this to me several times. You shoot a LOT.
Considering this guy was under fire, that aint bad shooting at all.