The following is my AAR from a recent Vehicle Engagement Tactics course held by TFTT Direct Action Group
1) Provider: TFTT Direct Action Group
2) Owner: Max Joseph
3) Phone / Web: 714-206-5168 / http://dag-usa.com/
4) E-mail: director@tftt.com
5) When: June 10-11, 2017
6) Where: Milwaukee Area Technical College, Oak Creek, WI
7) Accommodations: N/A
8) Gear used: BCM 14.5” pinned upper with Leaper’s Pro handguard and DPMS lower, Vortex SPARC II red dot, Sling Dynamics sling, various makes of magazines, and Mako carbine magazine pouch. Glock 19 with Inforce APL light, KT-Mech Defender Holster, Uncle Mike’s Kydex pistol magazine pouch, factory Glock 19 and MagPul GL9 magazines, Wilderness instructor belt, and shooter produced reloads.
9) Cost: $460.
10) Did weather adversely affect training: No
11) Instructors’ Competence: Instructor’s skills and ability to apply them exceeded my own, of course.
12) Instructors’ Ethics: Outstanding
13) Safely Conducted: Yes
14) Condition of Equipment: Excellent
15) Food: N/A
16) Number of overall firearms’ related training classes for myself: Student – 15 (2 as host), Range Assistant/FoF Role Player – 3
17) Certificate issued: Yes
18) Training time: 16 hours
19) Written training plan: Yes Followed: Yes
20) Instructor to student ratio: 1/4 primarily
21) Round count: 253 pistol + unknown quantity of frangible / 110 carbine
22) Recommended: Yes
23) General comments: I wanted to focus on one to two training subjects in 2017; force-on-force and vehicle selfdefense. We spend a lot of time in and around our cars; I believe the likelihood of needing to defend oneself around a vehicle is high. While my quest for a course on civilian self-defense in and around vehicles was satisfied by an April High Threat Vehicle Engagements course with 88 Tactical one of my shooting partners found and recommended this DAG class. This was something like his fifth class with Max Joseph and DAG. I didn’t think another perspective on engagements around vehicles would hurt and I’ll note this was still not the “street fighter run around a car at a quick pace engaging targets with a carbine” class I wanted to avoid.

Sometimes in your life you meet teachers and instructors whose style meshes with you. Max’s style meshed with me. As I am a 20-year retiree of the Navy and Max is a Marine Corps veteran, one might think it was the militarydriven nature of the class, but I’ll note that I specifically disliked the nature of every military class I ever took on AntiTerrorism/Force Protection so I can’t place my finger on it exactly. Max is driven and meticulous. You’ll observe his driven nature when he chases you down in the shoot-house tour because it is 0759 and time to start class…or when he rips the clip off yet another pen. You’ll note his meticulous nature when you see him adjust the position of the dryerase markers, coffee cup, pen, and notebook on the classroom table for the fifth time. Class administration was outstanding; start, breaks, and time, overall, were well managed. You’ll notice “lunch” is missing in there. Max doesn’t break for lunch. Neither do I. Perfect.

Max is the co-originator of position Sul; a pistol muzzle orienting position that allows one to safely work in close proximity with team mates. One of the things I knew I wanted out of the class from the start was to learn how to exit a vehicle using Sul instead of the temple index taught us by 88 Tactical so that I had both perspectives. With temple index one would 1) engage the target, 2) index, 3) exit vehicle, 4) turn 180 degrees and 5) move to the rear of the vehicle to take cover and 6) re-engage if needed. With Sul one would 1) engage, 2) exit vehicle with muzzle “down range”, 3) obtain Sul, 4) turn 180 degrees, 5) move to the rear of the vehicle to take cover and 6) re-engage if needed. If I got that right there is no difference in the number of steps. I’ve seen vehement opposition to temple index by an industry trainer that I highly respect and Max is also opposed to temple index. In the end I, as a simple, everyday guy, have two ways to exit a vehicle under duress without muzzling myself or anyone else. Hopefully, my brain chooses one and the right one for the circumstance if needed.

We started building the foundation of Max’s draw and presentation technique through drills. We established obtaining position Sul, transiting with it and engaging from it. We covered two-person techniques including side-by-side in contact and high/low. We covered establishing a common communication language and discussed Sector of Responsibility. Sector of Responsibility was a good take away for me. We learned modified vehicular Sul and engaging from it. I did not shoot up to par from the start as I was quite nervous about ensuring the safety of my teammate. During all the close-proximity drills and shooting, including high/low and engaging from the back seat of the vehicle immediately following the front seat occupants’ evacuation, I was never worried about my teammate shooting me; I was only ever worried about making sure I was safe around him.

We moved into various engagements from a no-shoot SUV; in tandem with pistols and then with carbines. Not shooting the no-shoot vehicle, specifically an SUV when one is 5’6”, also makes one nervous… Everything alternated between the range and the classroom. There were many preparations, including the direction to study overnight, for taking the written test which was to be administered near the end of day 2.

This is where I note that my shooting partner and I weren’t too excited when we learned the class was inside, but given the hot weather for the two days everyone was totally appreciative that it was in the end. The indoor range did offer a challenge. Even before we started to engage steel in Max’s normal paper/steel lineup we were receiving enough spall coming back off the backstop’s plates to cause us concern. Pieces as big as the end of my thumb were common. My shooting partner received one to chin that caused a fair amount of bleeding and my teammate received one to the abdomen. After that we switched to range-provided frangible rounds in the pistols for most, but not all, of the indoor shooting. I’m not sure how much of the frangible stuff I shot so that makes the class round count for pistol a little dubious. We didn’t encounter any spall problems with the carbines.

Day two started with a refresher on shooting based on the foundation established on day one including a 10-round test. By then I’d settled in a bit. I scored 70% A-zone hits and 30% B-zone hits which did not elicit approval from Max. Personally, I was not proud, but they weren’t misses. We moved the shoot car into the range and began the demonstration phase to learn what windshields do to bullets. We did some other 2-man debus drills with pistols. We then went outside with red guns and learned vehicle takedowns. Back inside again we learned counter-Ambush Front technique and then we were back outside for 1 and 2 car VIP protection procedures. I’m not sure where this part fit in. Interesting and cool, to be sure, but not a skill set I or my shooting partner believe we need to prepare for. Back inside we did some more shooting demonstrations into the A-post, door, trunk, and more with the carbine and pistol. Back inside we took the test then moved back to the range to cover counter-Ambush Right. That concluded the class.

For the average concealed carrier I’d recommend the 88 Tactical High Threat Vehicle Engagements course. Its drills are more applicable to the concealed carrier. The class was local and the cost was not out of line. If offered locally I’d take some of the pistol courses offered by TFTT-DAG. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting Max and spending the two days being instructed by him. His style demonstrated being in charge and being the authority, but that student denigration, even if tongue-in-cheek, isn’t necessary. There was a communication problem in that none of us were clear on exactly where the course was being held at MATC. Calls to the local liaison helped remedy that. Max presents a very professional business front.