COLD WEAPONS WITH IMPACT-CRUSHING EFFECT.

COLD WEAPONS OF IMPACT-CRUSHING EFFECT

Dyakonov P.A., lecturer
Moscow Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

Forensic examination of bladed weapons has received sufficient attention over the past forty years. At present, we can probably already speak of an independent forensic doctrine of bladed weapons as a branch of forensic technology. The greatest contribution to this area of ​​forensic science was made by V. M. Pleskachevsky, A. S. Podshibyakin, A. N. Samonchik, E. N. Tikhonov, A. I. Ustinov and V. V. Filippov. Their works developed the concept and classification of bladed weapons, their evolution, described the main types and kinds, considered the legal and theoretical problems of investigative inspection, expert examination and evaluation of bladed weapons. At the same time, I would like to note that in most works the emphasis was always placed on bladed objects, most often encountered in investigative and expert practice, and devices with impact-crushing action seemed to recede into the background.

Back in 1956, N. P. Yablokov, analyzing the practice of conducting examinations of bladed weapons in the expert divisions of the internal affairs agencies and scientific research forensic laboratories of the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR, stated: «the current situation with the production of examinations of bladed weapons in forensic institutions cannot be considered satisfactory». Devoting his work mainly to the analysis of the examination of knives and other bladed objects, N. P. Yablokov also notes: «serious doubts are raised by the conclusions of experts on impact-crushing bladed weapons. Information on the features of this weapon and the methods of its examination, available in the forensic literature, is more incomplete and imprecise than information on other types of bladed weapons. Hence, there are even more grounds for unfounded and questionable conclusions on the study of this type of bladed weapons.» Even the «Methodology for expert decision on whether an object is a cold weapon» adopted in 1998 only mentions objects of impact action in passing.

At the same time, the results of the expert study of precisely such devices, in our opinion, raise the greatest doubts in terms of their validity. The reasons for this are as follows: first of all, the range of devices related to cold weapons of impact-crushing action has not yet been clearly defined. Along with objects traditionally considered weapons, devices that serve as means of causing blunt injuries, but whose belonging to weapons is questionable, often fall into the sphere of activity of law enforcement agencies. In the last ten years alone, representative interdepartmental meetings of criminologists — scientists and practitioners have been held three times in connection with the emergence of new, previously unstudied objects — projectiles used in oriental martial arts, the so-called «paraphernalia of metalworkers», telescopic flails. However, this did not solve the problem.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that in recent years the shelves of bookstores have been filled with literature devoted to bladed weapons, but the information contained in it, in the opinion of many criminologists, is poorly substantiated in scientific terms. Serious works by P. Winkler, V. Behaim, M. V. Gorelik, M. M. Denisov, M. E. Portnov, E. N. Denisov are inaccessible to most readers, since they have become a bibliographic rarity.

In addition, it seems that the range of objects traditionally classified by forensic experts as cold weapons of impact-crushing action also requires some correction. First of all, in our opinion, this concerns such «classic» types of weapons as brass knuckles, palm grips, and nunchaku. In addition, some types of impact cold weapons, such as a club or a war hammer, have not been used by civilized peoples for many centuries, and at present, differentiating them from ordinary massive sticks or hammers is practically impossible.

In the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons» adopted in 1996, in addition to the concepts of «weapons» and «cold arms», the legislator also formulated a new concept — «specially adapted for use as weapons of objects of striking-crushing and throwing action», including flails, brass knuckles, shurikens, boomerangs, which criminologists traditionally classified as cold or throwing weapons. This legislative innovation has not been commented on by forensic scientists and also requires some understanding.

The above, in our opinion, indicates that the time has come to pay more attention to the problems associated with the study of cold arms of impact-crushing action — their concept, classification and, first of all, the definition of the range of objects related to this type of weapon. We realize that many of the provisions contained in this work are not indisputable, but, nevertheless, we take the liberty of expressing them in the hope of further discussion.
1. CONCEPT AND CLASSIFICATION OF COLD WEAPONS OF IMPACT-CRUSHING ACTION

It is known that any sufficiently developed and deeply substantiated branch of scientific knowledge should have a developed conceptual apparatus and terminological means of its expression. In the works of N.V. Terziev, D.P. Rasseikin, V.V. Filippov and A.I. Ustinov, A.N. Samonchik, N.I. Emelyanov, M.G. Lyukoy, Yu.P. Goldovansky and H.M. Takho-Godi, E.N. Tikhonov, A.S. Podshibyakin, V.M. Pleskachevsky, various definitions of bladed weapons were proposed, descriptions and characteristics of its types and kinds were given, and a methodology for expert research was formed. If we talk about the conceptual apparatus, it can be noted that attention was mainly paid to the general concept of bladed weapons. The concept of bladed weapons of impact-crushing action is less developed in forensic science.

Thus, in 1948, N. V. Terziev, without giving a special definition, formulated the main characteristics of a bladed weapon: «… 1) belonging to sharp cutting, chopping, piercing or blunt instruments; 2) intended to serve for attack or active self-defense; 3) the possibility of causing bodily harm …». While paying tribute to N. V. Terziev, the first of the criminologists who attempted to create a system of characteristics that should characterize a bladed weapon, we will nevertheless note the following: firstly, he combines into one group the characteristics of a bladed weapon belonging to different classification series — by the principle of damaging action (sharp cutting, chopping and piercing) and by design (blunt). And, secondly, in the proposal of N. V. Terziev there is some vagueness of the term «blunt instruments», which allows in some cases to interpret it too broadly. After all, any objects can be classified as blunt instruments — stones, sticks, hammers, sections of metal pipes, reinforcing bars, parts of industrial mechanisms, which are often used for criminal purposes, are instruments of committing crimes, but are not classified as weapons. A. I. Ustinov, M. E. Portnov and E. N. Denisov quite correctly pointed out this in their time: «The range of objects that can be a weapon of crime is practically unlimited. In addition, any object becomes a weapon of crime only from the moment this crime is committed. A bladed weapon is a weapon from the very moment of its manufacture. As a result of this, the concepts of «bladed weapon» and «weapon of crime» may or may not coincide».

Leningrad criminologist N. I. Yemelyanov proposed his own definition of a cold weapon, although he formulated it in a general form, without taking into account the specific design features and principles of the destructive effect of a cold weapon of one type or another. According to N. I. Yemelyanov, «a cold weapon is an object specially made or adapted to cause bodily harm, convenient and suitable in its size, shape and strength for this purpose and not having a direct purpose in the household and in everyday life.»

A. N. Samonchik in 1959 specified that the object should serve for active attack or self-defense, that human muscular strength is used in this case, and that the direct purpose of a cold weapon is to use it for military purposes, for hunting or fishing. He, without giving a special concept of a striking-crushing cold weapon, at the same time indicates that the main design feature of such a weapon is the presence of a striking (beating) surface, and the entire arrangement of its parts is specially adapted for a firm hold in the hand.

The first and most complete definition of a cold weapon was the concept proposed in 1959 by M. G. Lyukim: «A cold weapon is an object that does not have a direct industrial or household purpose; specially made or adapted to inflict bodily harm during an attack or active defense; corresponding to these purposes in terms of the design features of its parts, their dimensions and properties of materials (strength, hardness, elasticity), and in terms of the mode of action being chopping, piercing, cutting, piercing-chopping, piercing-cutting, striking or a mixed type.» In this definition, it is already possible to identify a fairly complete set of features of a cold weapon — and its intended purpose — intended to inflict bodily harm during an attack and active defense, and certain design features — the size of parts and properties of materials, and to a certain extent — the principle of damaging action.

Later, authors working in this area of ​​forensic examination, in addition to the general definition of a cold weapon, also proposed the concept of a striking and crushing cold weapon. Their positions will be considered below in more detail.

A.I. Ustinov, M.E. Portnov, E.N. Denisov (1961) excluded from the general definition of cold arms, and in our opinion, quite correctly, the concept of «suitability» of an object for causing bodily harm (E.N. Tikhonov wrote about this in detail). They also point out that the intended purpose of impact-crushing cold arms «is to affect the target directly by the force of the blow itself due to the greater or lesser weight of the weapon and, in some cases, special combat protrusions on it.» This definition seems too general, since it does not make clear what the specificity of impact cold arms is and how it differs from bladed weapons? After all, bladed weapons also affect the target directly by the force of the blow itself and, to a certain extent, due to the weight of the blade.

Yu. P. Goldovansky and H. M. Takho-Godi (1973) proposed their own concept of impact-crushing weapons: «The intended purpose of the types of weapons under consideration is to cause bodily injury — bruises by means of the impact of the striking surface of the weapon on the target. An increase in muscle strength and an increase in the striking effect … are achieved due to the hardness of the striking surface and the weight of the entire weapon or its striking part.» In this definition, one circumstance draws attention, which we consider a serious, fundamental error that excessively expands the range of such weapons. Bodily injury caused by impact bladed weapons, Yu. P. Goldovansky and H. M. Takho-Godi reduce to bruises, which, in our opinion, does not at all correspond to the intended purpose of any weapon. In traumatology, bruises are understood as mechanical damage to soft tissues that are not accompanied by a violation of their integrity. Thus, if we follow the position of the aforementioned authors, then the impact-crushing cold weapons should include not the knuckle dusters, flails, maces that they list, but, first of all, in modern language, means of metered impact impact, that is, rubber truncheons.

V. A. Khvalin is of the same opinion: «The marks left on a person by a striking weapon are in the form of abrasions and bruises (heightened by us — author), which is due to the direction of movement of the bladed weapon and its shape». The erroneousness, in our opinion, of this position has already been discussed above. An abrasion is a mechanical damage to the outer layer of the skin or mucous membrane; a bruise (hex) is most often formed with bruises accompanied by hemorrhage into the superficial tissues of the body. A striking weapon leaves other «traces» of its action — first of all, blunt injuries in the form of damage to human bone tissue. Along with this, attention is drawn to V. A. Khvalin's confusion of such concepts as the type of damage and its form. Both abrasions and bruises are types of bodily injuries that can have different shapes — round, oval, triangular, etc., depending on the design of the weapon that caused them (and not just bladed weapons), the area of ​​the contacting surface, and the angle of contact.

The definitions of bladed weapons in general and impact-crushing weapons in particular that appeared later supplement and clarify the definitions given above to one degree or another.

Thus, E. N. Tikhonov, recognizing the definition of M. G. Lyukoy as generally acceptable, writes: “Cold weapons are objects specially made to directly cause bodily harm that is dangerous to life at the time of infliction, using human muscular force, that do not have a direct industrial or household purpose and are intended for attack or active defense, corresponding to these purposes in their design, size and material, and in terms of the method (principle) of damaging action are piercing, cutting, chopping, piercing-cutting, piercing-chopping, chopping-cutting, piercing-cutting-chopping, impact-crushing or combined tools.” Further, E. N. Tikhonov, quite correctly in our opinion, clarifies what the damaging effect of impact-crushing cold weapons consists of. In his opinion, it is achieved by the fact that a person, using his muscular strength, strikes a blow with a hard, fairly heavy and durable part of this weapon, while the soft tissues of the body of the target are crushed and the bones and cartilage are shattered. Later, he added that the striking part of the weapon should also be blunt.

I would like to dwell separately on the position of A. S. Podshibyakin on the issue under consideration. He defines cold arms as «objects and devices specially made or adapted for hitting a living or other target or causing serious bodily harm, in design and mode of action determined by design, corresponding to standard models or historically developed types and acting (directly or indirectly) with the help of human muscular force». In the proposed concept of impact-crushing cold arms, A. S. Podshibyakin also includes an indication of some design features characteristic of this type of weapon: «Impact-crushing weapons increase the force of the blow due to the weight of the weapon itself, and in some models (club, flail) and due to the lengthening of the shoulder during impact. The striking properties are enhanced by special combat protrusions present on some models, and also notes the mandatory presence of a striking (beating) part and a device for comfortable and secure holding of the weapon in the hand.

In the definition of a cold weapon proposed by A.S. Podshibyakin, several points are noteworthy. Firstly, in our opinion, the intended purpose of the weapon is formulated vaguely — to defeat or cause serious bodily harm. It seems that any weapon, including cold weapons, is intended to defeat a target, and causing bodily harm may simply be the result of its use in each specific case.

Secondly, the object of destruction is not precisely defined. It is unclear what is meant by «other targets» that are destroyed by cold weapons? We can take the liberty of asserting that no other targets, except living ones (people or animals), are destroyed by cold weapons, including those with impact and crushing action.

Thirdly, in our opinion, there is no correlation between A. S. Podshibyakin's assertion that cold arms must correspond to standard models or historically developed types of weapons and the rubber truncheons he cited on page 94 as examples of impact-crushing weapons. It is generally recognized in forensic weapons science that rubber truncheons are not (and never have been) impact-crushing weapons, but are classified as special means of dosed impact action.

A.G. Egorov, N.M. Svidlov, Yu.N. Chentsov (1984) do not give a special concept of impact-crushing cold weapons, but note that it has two main features: 1) the presence of a special striking part (surface); 2) high strength of the structure. Here I would like to note that the second feature is not specific to the type of cold weapon in question, since the high strength of the entire structure and its individual elements is a necessary property of any weapon in general, not only cold weapons, but also firearms, throwing weapons, etc.

The Dictionary of Basic Terms and Definitions for the Examination of Cold Steel Weapons offered the following definition of the weapon in question: «Impact-crushing cold steel weapons are a type of cold steel weapons, the combat use of which consists of inflicting bodily harm by crushing bones and smashing soft tissues and cartilage.» It should be noted that this dictionary was created at a time when the Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons» had not yet been adopted and the GOST for terms and definitions of cold steel weapons had not yet been developed. At present, we believe that, taking into account these regulations, this concept should be clarified and supplemented.

E. N. Tikhonov, L. V. Spitskaya, Sh. N. Khaziev, M. G. Lyuki, I. I. Yakushevskaya in the Dictionary of Special Terms of Forensic Examination of Cold Steel Define Impact-Crushing Cold Steel (Impact Cold Steel) as «a subclass of cold steel weapons based on the principle of damaging action, intended for striking the head and other parts of the human body, crushing bones and smashing soft tissues, corresponding in design, method of control, holding and action to non-bladed cold steel weapons». It is noteworthy how the authors formulate the intended purpose of impact weapons — intended for striking the head and other parts of the human body. This position seems erroneous. Any cold steel weapon is not intended for striking (they can be struck by anything — a hand, a foot, a wooden stick), but for hitting a target. Of course, at the time when this dictionary was being worked on, the Law on Weapons had not yet been adopted, but the generally accepted view among criminologists was that bladed weapons were intended to cause serious bodily harm that was dangerous to life at the moment of infliction.

Secondly, the authors mentioned significantly narrow the scope of application of impact-crushing cold weapons, limiting it only to humans. Both ancient people and some modern nations at a low level of development used and use impact weapons not only for combat purposes, but also for hunting animals and large birds. Extensive material on the use of impact weapons as hunting weapons is contained in the book by A. V. Piskunov «Cold weapons in hunting and in combat» (Minsk, 1999). Thus, it is not only a military weapon, but also a hunting weapon.

V.M. Pleskachevsky (1999) does not provide a special concept of the type of weapon in question, but notes: “Within the collective concept of “cold weapons”, there is also a certain collective nature of the term “cold weapons of impact-crushing action”, which unites certain objects by the nature of the damage inflicted”, which is undoubtedly correct, since there is no abstract cold weapon, including impact, but only its specific varieties, as A.I. Ustinov wrote quite correctly back in 1961: “In nature, there are no abstract cold weapons, but only its specific varieties: the bayonet of the Mauser-98 rifle, the Kubachi dagger, the Finnish knife, etc. Each of these objects is characterized by its own very specific design features, inherent only to it».

The concept in question is also contained in non-criminalistic literature. Thus, V. N. Popenko, the author of widely published popular publications on bladed weapons, provides the following definition: «Impact weapon, a weapon that strikes a certain area of ​​the body's surface without penetrating deep into it (club, oslop, nunchaku, flail, etc.).» It seems that this is sufficient for a publication intended for a general reader, although this definition is too general and does not reflect either the design features of impact-crushing bladed weapons or the specifics of their use. It seems to us that the works of V. N. Popenko can hardly be used in forensics and examination of bladed weapons as reference material, due to their obvious compilation and the lack of references to sources, which makes it impossible to verify and evaluate the information contained in them.

In 1993, for the first time in our country, a legislative definition of a cold weapon was formulated (Article 1 of the Law «On Weapons» of 1993), which was then reproduced in Article 1 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons» of 1996: «A cold weapon is a weapon designed to hit a target using human muscle power in direct contact with the target». However, in this case, as can be seen from the text, the concept of a cold weapon contained in the Law is given only in a general form, without taking into account its types, types and specifics of use. To some extent, the legislative gap is filled by the State Standard for terms and definitions of bladed weapons (GOST R 51215-98), adopted in 1998, but it, in our opinion, also needs some clarification with regard to bladed weapons of impact-crushing action.

GOST R 51215 — 98 «Cold weapons. Terms and definitions» contains two concepts characterizing the object in question: impact (cold) weapons (p. 3.4) and impact-crushing (cold) weapons (p. 3.11).

Impact cold weapons are defined as «cold weapons whose warhead is a concentrated mass», and impact-crushing weapons are defined as «cold weapons whose warhead causes crushing of soft tissues and crushing or fractures of bone tissues». Thus, we are talking about different characteristics of the same type of weapon. On the one hand, GOST indicates a necessary design feature — the presence of a warhead in the form of a concentrated mass — an impact load, a striking surface (impact weapon), and on the other — the method of its action — the formation of damage of a certain type (impact-crushing weapons). It seems that such differentiation in essence of the same concept is redundant, which can lead to a certain confusion and different understanding and interpretation of these terms, both in scientific literature and in investigative documents and expert opinions. In our opinion, the term «impact-crushing» cold weapon fully covers the term «impact weapon», since it contains an indication of both the design feature and the feature that determines the method (principle) of the destructive action of this type of cold weapon.

In addition, when characterizing individual types of impact-crushing weapons — maces, flails, etc., the GOST must mention that they are contact weapons, that is, weapons held in the hand when used.

Thus, based on the analysis of the above definitions contained in the forensic literature and in current regulations, it can be argued that a cold weapon with impact-crushing action must have the following set of features:
Like any other weapon, it must be designed to hit a living target (human or animal).
In military literature, defeat of objects (targets) is understood as «the impact of various means of destruction on objects (targets), as a result of which they completely or partially (temporarily) lose the ability to function normally (perform a combat mission). Defeat of objects consists of their destruction (destruction), suppression or exhaustion (of the manpower of objects).» Naturally, such a target designation presupposes the absence of any direct economic, domestic, industrial or special purpose. This circumstance is very important, since it allows us to differentiate between impact-crushing weapons and special means of metered impact impact. In addition, the purpose predetermines such a design of the object (device), which ensures the possibility of its repeated use to accomplish the specified goal.
Like any cold weapon, a shock-crushing weapon is designed to hit only a living target — a person or an animal. Thus, it can be classified as either a military or a civilian cold weapon.
It must have a warhead in the form of a striking load or surface — a concentrated mass — a necessary design feature that distinguishes a cold weapon with a shock-crushing action from a bladed weapon, which in a certain sense is also a shock weapon.
Its combat part must cause damage in the form of crushing and fractures of bone tissue or crushing of soft tissue. Unlike GOST R 51215 — 98, we put crushing and fractures of bone tissue in first place, since it seems that this also distinguishes the cold weapon of the type under consideration from special means of dosed impact.
It must have a device for holding this weapon in the hand — a shaft, a handle, or an attachment to the hand — a loop, etc.
The striking load and the handle must have either a rigid or flexible connection.
As additional striking elements, impact cold weapons may have spikes, protrusions, hooks (beaks), etc. design features.

It is also necessary to dwell on the following circumstance. Some types of impact cold weapons, for example, a mace, a pernach, could be used and were used to hit a target at a certain distance, i.e. for throwing. Unfortunately, such specificity of their use in forensic literature was almost not reflected, but in military-historical and popular science publications it is repeatedly emphasized. Only it is necessary to immediately stipulate that in this case we should not talk about cold throwing (or throwing cold) weapons, as V.N. Popenko does, but about cold thrown weapons, i.e. such cold weapons, one of the options for the use of which involves throwing it at a certain distance. This circumstance, in our opinion, should also be reflected in the definition of the type of weapon in question.

Thus, summing up the above-listed features, we can propose the concept of impact-crushing cold weapons in the following wording.

Impact-crushing weapons are a type of contact and thrown combat (military) and civilian bladed weapons, the warhead of which is a concentrated mass and causes crushing and fractures of bone and crushing of soft tissues of the affected living target.

No science can do without systematization of scientific knowledge, its classification. Classifications are of great importance in criminalistics and forensic examination, since they are developed for the implementation of specific scientific and practical tasks. That is why all authors who have worked and are working in the field of forensic examination of cold weapons, to one degree or another touched upon the issues of its classification. Since the classification of cold weapons in general and bladed cold weapons in particular remain outside the scope of this study, we will touch upon them only in connection with the classification of cold weapons of impact-crushing action.

The very first classification of cold arms in forensic literature was proposed by N. I. Yemelyanov. He divided cold arms into bladed, non-bladed and combined. Bladed weapons were divided by their intended purpose, operating principle, place and method of manufacture.

Soon, in 1959, A. N. Samonchik gave a general classification of cold weapons. He classified all cold weapons into bladed and non-bladed: «Depending on the purpose and method of action, bladed cold weapons are divided into: chopping, stabbing, stabbing-chopping and stabbing-cutting. Non-bladed weapons, according to this feature, are classified as cold weapons of crushing or striking action. Cold weapons, the manufacture, storage, sale and carrying of which without permission in the established manner is prohibited, include: … 5) brass knuckles, flails, maces (beaters) and palm grips (weapons of crushing or striking action).»A.I. Ustinov, M.E. Portnov, E.N. Denisov classified all cold weapons into bladed, striking and crushing, combined and camouflaged. Moreover, they somewhat expanded the range of striking and crushing weapons proposed by A.N. Samonchik, including in it, in addition to brass knuckles, flails, maces and palms, also clubs and six-opera or pernachi.

Later, these classifications were clarified and supplemented. Thus, T.A. Sedova proposed to classify cold weapons by design, operating principle, manufacturing method and intended purpose (military, hunting, national, police and criminal weapons).

Yu. P. Goldovansky and H. M. Taho-Godi classified cold weapons by design, by operating principle, by manufacturing method, by place of manufacture, by special purpose — military, hunting and criminal.

A.S. Podshibyakin, offering his original and quite detailed classification of cold weapons, included metal gloves, as well as striking rings, clubs, «gasilo», combat whips, lashes, nagaikas, nunchaku in the circle of striking-crushing weapons. To the combined — stabbing-cutting, cutting, striking-crushing — he attributed «toothed chains», knuckle-knives, knuckle-daggers, string-flail, combat whip-dagger.

For the first time, along with the general classification of cold arms, E. N. Tikhonov proposed his own classification of weapons with striking and crushing action. He classified all cold arms, including striking and crushing ones, by their design, control method, holding and action. On this basis, he divides non-bladed (shock-crushing) cold arms into three groups. The first is with a rod and a striking part. E. N. Tikhonov includes clubs, maces, truncheons, bitki, pernachi, and shestopery in this group. The second group is cold arms with a rod or loop and a flexible suspension with a striking load. This includes flails, combat whips, combat lashes, and nunchaku. And the third group is cold arms that fit on the hand — brass knuckles, palm grips, striking rings.

A. G. Egorov, N. M. Svidlov, and Yu. N. Chentsov classify non-bladed cold weapons in a similar way, but they somewhat change the terminology used by E. N. Tikhonov: “Non-bladed cold weapons,” they write, “are of three types:
with a rigid connecting element (rod) between the handle and the striking part (clubs, truncheons, maces, six-footers, and pernaches);
with a suspension — a flexible connecting element between the handle or loop and the striking part (whips and scourges with weights on the ends, flails, nunchaku);
without a connecting element (metal gloves, brass knuckles, palm grips, cue balls).

It is noteworthy that the same object — a cue ball — is included in different groups of striking weapons by the above-mentioned authors and E.N. Tikhonov. E.N. Tikhonov believes that cue balls are weapons with a rod and a striking part, while A.G. Egorov, N.M. Svidlov, and Yu.N. Chentsov classify cue balls as cold weapons without a connecting element, i.e., worn on the hand. Thus, we have a clear designation of apparently different objects by one term.

V. M. Pleskachevsky (1999), agreeing in principle with such a classification of cold weapons of impact-crushing action, introduces other, more laconic, names of classification groups: 1) rod; 2) flexible-jointed and 3) wrist weighting weapons of impact-crushing action. He also introduces combat hammers and wooden ton-fu into the group of rod impact-crushing weapons; hunting kamchi and impact whips into the group of flexible-jointed weapons, and metal yawara into the group of wrist weapons. In the terminology proposed by V. M. Pleskachevsky, attention is drawn to the name of the second group — «flexible-jointed» weapons, which includes objects structurally related to different types. For example, hunting kamchi (whips) are flexible weapons, and nunchaku are rigid, jointed, or sectioned. In oriental martial arts, these groups are usually called flexible weapons and sectioned weapons. Each of these groups includes dozens of objects, each of which is called a cold weapon, although many are not. Experts have developed other, more «rigid» ideas about weapons, significantly limiting their range. Therefore, in forensic science, such a unification of various design types of cold weapons into one group is justified. As for the somewhat unusual name, we believe that it will be accepted by forensic scientists, at least due to its brevity and ease of use.

In addition, V. M. Pleskachevsky classifies weapons, including cold weapons with impact-crushing action, according to the semantic vertical into genera (by intended purpose), types (by traditional name), subtypes (by design), varieties (by mode of action), design types, and models.

The original classification of cold weapons, including those with impact and crushing action, was proposed in 1987 by Yu. Nazarov. He based this classification on a unified physical and mathematical model of the action of cold weapons. When developing such a model, Yu. Nazarov used the kinetic energy of the cold weapon at the moment of striking and applied per unit of trace surface. In his work, Yu. Nazarov provides formulas for calculations and comes to the following conclusion: «The objective nature of these patterns allows us to propose a new classification of cold weapons, where the speed of striking required to defeat a person is used as a species-forming feature. On this basis, all cold weapons are divided into:

a) high-speed, which is characterized by low weight, volume and small linear dimensions (light frame brass knuckles, nunchaku, light flails). The striking speed of such a weapon should be more than 1.5 rev./sec. (10 rad./sec.), otherwise the blow will be ineffective;
b) medium-speed, which is characterized, as a rule, by significant linear dimensions (clubs, flails, sabres, broadswords). For an effective strike, the length of the weapon must be more than half a meter, and the speed must be 0.5 — 1.5 rev./sec. (4 — 9 rad./sec.);
c) low-speed, which is characterized by significant weight, usually exceeding 3 kg. It has high potential energy and therefore does not require a high strike speed».

Unfortunately, this work by Y. Nazarov was published in a collection little known to criminologists, in a small print run, and therefore did not receive the proper assessment. It seems to us that Y. Nazarov's proposal deserves attention and, after appropriate verification, if there are positive results, can be introduced into expert practice.

An analysis of the current forensic classifications of impact-crushing cold weapons in the scientific literature shows that a number of forensic scientists propose to include objects that are often used in committing crimes, but are not weapons in fact, in various classification groups of cold weapons. In this case, appropriate names are selected for them: «metal gloves», «combat whips», «impact rings», etc. Considering the classification of impact-crushing cold weapons and various points of view on it, we mentioned these objects. However, we will express our opinion on the validity of their inclusion in the circle of objects related to cold weapons in the relevant sections of this study.

The Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons» provides its own classification of weapons, including bladed weapons, which is somewhat different from the generally accepted one. Depending on the purposes of their use by the relevant entities, as well as on the main parameters and characteristics, weapons are divided into: 1) civilian; 2) service; 3) combat hand-held firearms and bladed weapons (Article 2).

With regard to cold weapons in civilian weapons, the law distinguishes: sport cold bladed weapons, hunting cold bladed weapons and cold bladed weapons intended for wearing with the Cossack uniform, as well as with the national costumes of the peoples of the Russian Federation (Article 3); combat hand-held small arms and cold weapons include weapons intended for solving combat and operational-service tasks, adopted in accordance with the regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation for service by state paramilitary organizations (Article 5). The Federal Law does not say what is considered service cold weapons.

At the same time, the law prohibits the circulation on the territory of the Russian Federation of flails, brass knuckles, shurikens, boomerangs and other objects specially adapted for use as weapons with striking-crushing and throwing action, with the exception of sports equipment (clause 1 of Article 6) as civilian and service weapons.

Taking into account the classification of weapons contained in the Federal Law «On Weapons», in 2000 A. M. Sumaroka, A. V. Stalmakhov, A. G. Egorov proposed their own classification. They subdivide edged weapons by purpose into combat, civilian, service, criminal; by manufacturing method — into industrial and homemade; by design — into bladed, non-bladed, combined, camouflaged. In this case, non-bladed weapons are divided into weapons:
with a rigid connecting element;
with a flexible connecting element;
without a connecting element.

By the method of action, all non-bladed weapons are impact-crushing.

Thus, taking as a basis the classifications of cold weapons contained in forensic literature, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons», taking into account the provisions of GOST R 51215-98 «Cold weapons. Terms and definitions», we can propose the following classification of impact-crushing cold weapons.

According to the design type, we propose to classify the impact-crushing cold weapons into two groups: rod and flexible-joint (in accordance with the terminology proposed by V. M. Pleskachevsky). The third group of impact-crushing cold weapons, which has traditionally been distinguished in forensic weapons science, «weighted wrist weapons», is not included in the classification for reasons that will be presented and substantiated in the relevant section of this study.

The rod impact-crushing cold weapons certainly include clubs, maces, pernachi, six-feathered hammers, klevtsy, and war hammers. The flexible-joint ones include flails, combat flails, and hunting whips.

According to their intended purpose, impact-crushing cold weapons can be divided into two groups: combat (military) and civilian.

Combat (military) impact-crushing cold weapons include cold weapons that are or were in service with state paramilitary organizations, soldiers and military formations of the past and are intended to solve combat and operational-service tasks.

Civilian impact-crushing cold weapons include cold weapons intended for use by individuals for self-defense and for killing animals and large birds during hunting. As noted above, both in ancient times and at present, some peoples use impact-crushing weapons (clubs, maces and hunting whips) for hunting animals and large birds. Hunting cold weapons, in accordance with GOST R 51215, are civilian cold weapons (clause 3.13). However, the same GOST defines civilian cold weapons as cold weapons permitted by law for use by citizens (clause 3.12), and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Weapons» does not provide for the circulation of impact-crushing cold weapons, and prohibits the circulation of impact-crushing objects specially adapted for use as weapons on the territory of Russia.

The identification by some criminologists of the so-called «intermediate» group of police cold arms seems to us to be unfounded. At present, cold arms with striking and crushing action are not in service with police units. In any case, we are not aware of such facts. While identifying a special group of police weapons, T. A. Sedova, E. N. Tikhonov, A. S. Podshibyakin, V. M. Pleskachevsky nevertheless include in it the so-called police batons (clubs), flails, ton-fas, and kubotans. These objects are indeed used in the work of the militia and police of many countries, but they have never been classified as weapons, but have always been and are special means of metered impact.

In our opinion, the proposal of a number of criminologists to include in the classification of bladed weapons a special group of the so-called «weapons for criminal purposes» or «criminal bladed weapons» (T.A. Sedova, Yu.P. Goldovansky and H.M. Takho-Godi, E.N. Tikhonov, A.S. Podshibyakin, A.G. Egorov, N.M. Svidlov, Yu.N. Chentsov, V.M. Pleskachevskiy, L.B. Bespalova) is also controversial.

Yu. P. Goldovansky and H. M. Takho-Godi do not provide a definition of criminal cold arms. They only indicate that «criminal cold arms, i.e. weapons for criminal purposes, are made by homemade means». Thus, it can be assumed that any homemade cold arms are considered criminal cold arms, apparently from the moment of completion of their manufacture.

A.G. Egorov, N.M. Svidlov, Yu.N. Chentsov made an attempt, though not very successful in our opinion, to determine the intended purpose of criminal weapons and classify them: «Criminal bladed weapons are intended to commit crimes by causing death, serious or less serious bodily harm to a person. Therefore, from a forensic standpoint, this weapon is considered the most dangerous. These include:
converted sports swords, sabres, training bayonets, knives and other household or other objects that have acquired the properties of bladed weapons;
single-purpose weapons that have been criminal since their inception: palm grips, batons, «metal» gloves, etc.

We find it difficult to agree with this opinion because, firstly, any weapon, not just criminal cold weapons, is intended to cause death to a person. In this way, «criminal cold weapons» do not differ from other types of weapons; secondly, weapons converted from sports equipment and household knives, specially made palmtops, batons, etc. objects, as well as any homemade weapons made without the appropriate permit, are subject to criminal liability. In this sense, all of them are criminal and there is no difference between converted and specially made weapons. And, thirdly, the relevance of palmtops, batons, «metal» gloves to cold weapons is very problematic, which we will try to prove in the corresponding paragraph of this study.

E. N. Tikhonov, agreeing in principle with the admissibility of the term «criminal» cold arms, nevertheless notes: «Only those weapons that are intended to hit a living target, as well as for other operations of a clearly criminal nature, or for causing bodily harm in a particularly painful way can be classified as criminal cold arms.» In an earlier work, E. N. Tikhonov names thieves' tools — «writing sticks», as well as «micro daggers» and poison rings as examples of such weapons.

The position of E. N. Tikhonov, including the above-mentioned objects among cold arms, has already been rightly criticized in forensic literature. As for the means used to cause bodily harm to a person in a particularly painful way, in our opinion, they are not weapons, but instruments of torture.

Thus, the impossibility of a clear differentiation between «criminal» cold arms and other cold arms makes the allocation of a special classification group of «criminal cold arms» poorly substantiated in theoretical terms and unnecessary in practice. Criminal cold arms are a legal rather than forensic concept, covering all weapons that have entered the law enforcement sphere, regardless of the method and purpose for which they were manufactured and how they were used.

L.B. Bespalova in her dissertation research (1998) included in the classification of bladed weapons by intended purpose such groups of weapons as collectible, artistic, historical. It is difficult to agree with this proposal. Although such concepts are contained in GOST R 51215 «Bladed weapons. Terms and definitions», in our opinion, they do not define the intended purpose of the weapon, but the condition of a particular specimen (or specimens) of the weapon in a certain period of time. Thus, any combat or hunting bladed weapon (its intended purpose), placed in a collection, will be considered collectible. If it also has artistic and aesthetic value, then it will be artistic at the same time, and if the weapon was produced before 1891, then it will also be historical.

By the method of production, impact-crushing cold weapons can be divided into three groups: industrial, handicraft and homemade.

Industrial cold arms with impact-crushing action include weapons manufactured in large batches at industrial enterprises in accordance with state or company standards using a certain technology. It should be noted here that we deliberately do not use the terms «factory», «factory», «standard» weapons, since at present in our country at various factories, using industrial equipment, for sale to the population, a certain number of cold arms are produced, including impact-crushing weapons, as well as impact-crushing objects specially adapted for use as weapons. Although these objects are manufactured using industrial equipment, that is, essentially in a factory (factory) way, they are, however, manufactured illegally, without the use of any regulatory documentation and are essentially homemade.

Handicraft cold weapons with impact-crushing action, as a rule, traditional for a certain area, are made by master gunsmiths. These are either individual pieces or small batches, within which individual pieces may differ in design details, size, and design. Usually, handicraft production is distinguished by high quality materials and finishing. Magnificent examples of highly artistic handicraft impact-crushing cold weapons — maces, pernaches — can be seen in the exhibits of the Armory Chamber, the State Historical Museum, the State Hermitage and other domestic and foreign museums.

Homemade cold weapons with impact-crushing action are made by individuals, as a rule, who do not have the appropriate weapons skills, imitating known types, manually or using machine tools. The most common types of weapons encountered in investigative and expert practice are homemade nunchaku, brass knuckles, flails and maces (the legitimacy of classifying nunchaku and brass knuckles as cold weapons will be discussed below).

By the place of manufacture, impact-crushing cold weapons are traditionally divided into domestic and foreign. However, it should be immediately noted that the classification of impact-crushing cold weapons on this basis is very conditional. This is due to the fact that the state and administrative-territorial borders of our country change from time to time. Thus, it is now difficult to say whether, for example, the mace of the Ukrainian hetman, the Zaporizhian ataman or the combat flail of the Lithuanian peasant are domestic or foreign weapons? In addition, the circulation (and, consequently, production) of impact-crushing cold weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation is not provided for by law, therefore this issue can only be resolved in relation to industrial samples of foreign manufacture that have the appropriate markings.

As already noted, in our opinion, it is now urgently necessary to clarify the range of objects related to cold weapons of impact-crushing action. Following the already traditional classification of weapons by design types, we will consider the main groups of objects of impact action that fall within the scope of law enforcement agencies, and express our opinion regarding the validity of classifying certain devices as cold weapons.
2. ROD OBJECTS OF IMPACT-CRUSHING ACTION

The following non-bladed objects are traditionally classified by criminologists as concentrated mass rod cold weapons: clubs, maces, pernachi, bludgeons (clubs). A. N. Samonchik (1959) and E. N. Tikhonov (1987) group maces together with batons. At the same time, A. G. Egorov, N. M. Svidlov, Yu. N. Chentsov (1984), considering batons to be cold weapons of striking and crushing action, classify batons not as rod cold weapons, but, along with brass knuckles, as weapons of wrist weighting. V. M. Pleskachevsky (1999) also includes combat hammers and wooden tonfa in the group of rod cold weapons.

The club is an ancient weapon, known since the Paleolithic period. It was widely used in the Ancient World — Egypt, Ethiopia, the Persians, the Scythians and the Sarmatians. In the myths of the ancient Greeks, the club is mentioned as a weapon worthy of the immortal gods. The son of Zeus himself, Hercules, performing military and hunting feats, held a weighty club in his mighty hand. With it, he defeated the Nemean lion and the Lernaean many-headed hydra. Hercules is depicted with a voluminous knotted club on bas-reliefs, frescoes, cameos. He leans on it, resting after labors and feats — this is how the sculptor Farnese sculpted him. The club is also mentioned in Russian epics: «Ilya Muromets looks out from under his hand for the enemy. He has a club hanging on his hand, filled with lead, and for him the damask club is like a mitten… Dobrynya ties a battle club into his saddlebag, that club weighs ninety poods.

The club was a weapon of the infantryman and the horseman. For the latter, it usually served as an additional weapon and, if necessary, was used for throwing over short distances.

In the literature on weapons, including forensic literature, clubs are described in different ways. V. Behaim points out that the name club comes from the Latin word baculus — a stick, and characterizes it as a «club about 70 — 80 cm long, on the end of which a roughly carved image of an animal can be guessed.»

E. N. Tikhonov describes the club as follows: «A CLUBE is the simplest striking cold weapon, known since the Paleolithic era and used both for striking with the hand and for throwing from a distance at the head or body of an opponent. It was a heavy club weighing up to 12 kg made of strong wood, sometimes with a metal-bound and striking end equipped with sharp spikes or nails. The length of the club is up to 1.2 m, the striking end is 3-5 times thicker than the other. Under the name «oslop» it was used by ancient Russian warriors … A loop was usually attached to the thin end of the club, which served as a handle.» The same description is contained in the dictionary of special terms for forensic examination of cold weapons.

V. M. Pleskachevsky characterizes the club as a «club with a thickened striking part and a noticeable narrowing towards the handle, i.e. a pronounced conical shape. At the same time, the club consisted entirely of wood; at certain stages of its development, the working end began to be bound with metal strips or supplied with metal spikes.»

In 1992, the following definition of a club was proposed in the dictionary of basic terms and definitions for the examination of cold arms: «A CLADE is an ancient striking and crushing cold weapon — a heavy cudgel with a thickened end, either bound with iron or studded with large nails.»

Similar descriptions of the club are given by V. N. Popenko (1996) and B. G. Trubnikov (2001). K. V. Asmolov emphasizes that the spikes or points are the main element of the combat part of the club.

Thus, based on the descriptions contained in the literature, we can identify the design features of the club. The defining features include:
General design — a solid wooden conical rod.
Length 70 — 120 cm, weight — up to 12 kg.
The striking part of the club is thickened by 3 — 5 times compared to the handle.
The striking part of the club must be either bound with metal or studded with nails or other spikes.

Additional features:
The presence of a pronounced handle.
The presence of a loop for securely holding the club in the hand.

From a forensic point of view, the fourth defining design feature seems to be the most significant — the presence of a ferrule or spikes on the striking part. It is precisely thanks to this, in our opinion, that it is possible to differentiate between a club and a simple bludgeon. This is all the more important in connection with the fact that GOST R 51215 — 98 «Cold weapons. Terms and definitions» actually puts an equal sign between a club and a bludgeon, recognizing the synonymous term for a club «club» as unacceptable (clause 4.25).

It has been repeatedly emphasized in the literature that clubs are extremely rare in forensic practice. We also do not know of any cases where a club has become the object of expert examination. Therefore, from a forensic point of view, it is of interest only as a type of weapon on the basis of which other, more common types of cold weapons of concentrated mass were developed — maces, pernaches, etc.

Mace. As V.M. Pleskachevsky rightly points out, “… any tricks to increase the size of the club, the mass and shape of its striking part could not compensate for the insufficient specific gravity of the wood, which limited the destructive capabilities of the club. Therefore, rod-type striking and crushing weapons began to be assembled from two parts — a wooden shaft and a striking part made of a more durable material, i.e. the mace appeared.”

The mace as a striking and crushing cold weapon appeared in ancient times. V. V. Taratorin, showing the armament of the Scythian heavy cavalry (6th century BC), notes that along with the sword and spear, «there were also types of striking weapons in use: battle axes, chisels, maces, war hammers, clubs.» G. Weiss, characterizing the armament of the ancient Egyptians, describes the mace as follows: «In addition to the ancient more or less heavy wooden clubs, which conveniently replaced throwing weapons, military leaders also used round, beautifully decorated clubs in the form of a baton (mace) as a sign of distinction. One end of them was covered with metal, and the other was equipped with a kind of hilt to protect the hand. Sometimes, to make the mace heavier, the metal lining was replaced with a heavy metal ball.

Since the 14th century, the mace has become a very common weapon in the cavalry. «At that time, it was simply impossible to imagine a horseman without a mace. With a mace, war hammer or axe, a horseman could smash an opponent's helmet or tear his hauberk so that he could penetrate it with a sword. A blow from a mace could break an arm, even one well protected by armor,» wrote V. Behaim. By the 17th century, due to the development of firearms and the appearance of saddle pistols, the mace gradually lost its combat significance and increasingly became a distinctive sign of a military leader, a symbol of power, emphasizing the high social status and nobility of its owner. However, homemade maces were also encountered during the First World War on the Western Front as a weapon for silent close combat in trenches. It was made of solid wood, the top of such a mace was wrapped with metal wire and thick nails were driven into it as spikes.

A. N. Kirpichnikov, based on the analysis of the shape and details of the device of 102 iron and bronze mace tops found in the territory of ancient Rus' in the 11th — 12th centuries, divides them into six types with varieties:
type I — in the form of a cube with four cross-shaped spikes;
type II — in the form of a cube with cut corners. The role of the spikes is performed by four pyramidal projections formed by the intersection of the lateral planes;
type IIA — the same as type 11, but with a one-sided beak-shaped projection;
type III — with four (rarely five) pyramidal lateral spikes, located surrounded by eight (sometimes more) small rounded projections or without them;
type IV — with four large central and eight small outer spikes. The 12 spikes of these tops are usually outlined by two- or three-row transversely grooved rollers with pea-shaped protrusions;
type V — spherical tops with a smooth surface, ribbed, with sawn edges and with small bulges;
type VI — the sides form smoothly protruding edges (from 6 to 8). Maces with a top of this type can be considered as the predecessors of the six-foot mace. And then A. N. Kirpichnikov concludes: «In Rus', the mace was certainly part of the arsenal of military weapons. A mace weighing 200-300 g with a handle no less than 50-60 cm long could stun and disable even a warrior protected by armor in the event of a direct blow.» V. M. Pleskachevsky, evaluating the data of A. N. Kirpichnikov, quite rightly, in our opinion, believes that «the specified parameters of maces are optimal and should be taken into account in expert practice.» We would just like to clarify that by the weight of the mace A. N. Kirpichnikov apparently means the weight of the metal top, since it was the tops that were preserved in the excavations and were studied by him.

Very detailed descriptions of various design types of maces are given by V. Behaim: «In order to break through the haubert, the mace was already equipped with blunt spikes around 1280. Soldiers' humor gave such a mace the name «morgenstern» — «Morning Star». A cylindrical or spherical pommel made of lead or iron, equipped with spikes, was attached to a handle no more than a meter long with a strong leather lanyard. The shape of the metal pommels varied in detail, but cylindrical pommels proved to be the best…, since such a mace has a significantly larger striking surface and the pommel is more securely attached to the handle with the help of iron tires… In the East, the mace, a Tatar weapon by origin, was apparently used even before the beginning of the 111th century. It was well suited for fighting heavily armed horsemen… The Turkish mace was most often made entirely of metal and had a spherical or pear-shaped top.

Maces are described in sufficient detail in forensic literature. Thus, A.N. Samonchik characterizes a mace as follows: «Maces (bitki) are heavy objects with a thickened striking part and a handle. Maces are made by homemade methods — by casting from lead, tin, cast iron or turning from steel, copper, brass. A typical feature of a mace is the presence of protrusions on its striking surface.» A.S. Podshibyakin also gives a similar description of a mace.

E.N. Tikhonov gives the following definition of a mace: «BU-LAVA (from the Latin bulla — ball) — a striking cold weapon with a wooden or metal handle and a spherical head — a striking part, often equipped with spikes … The length of the mace is about 50 — 80 cm.» The same definition is contained in the dictionary of special terms for forensic examination of cold weapons.

A. I. Ustinov, M. E. Portnov, E. N. Denisov do not provide any design features of the mace, but they believe that the «mace is a modification of the pernach, having a spherical head instead of a multifaceted one.» However, we believe that in this case the authors mentioned are making an inaccuracy. As evidenced by the research of G. Weiss and A. N. Kirpichnikov, the mace appeared much earlier — one of the historical types of mace (VI) became the prototype of the pernach.

A. M. Sumaroka, A. V. Stalmakhov, A. G. Egorov define a mace as a «weapon with a rigid connecting element, the striking part of which is a separate element of the design in the form of a spherical tip. As a rule, the total length of a mace is 50 — 80 cm». Here, attention is drawn to the fact that these authors single out the pommel (tip) as a separate element of the design as a design feature of a mace, which seems incorrect to us. Firstly, not all historical maces had pommels made separately from the handle (short shaft). Maces are known that were made from a single piece of wood or other material — metal, bone, whalebone, jade. Secondly, modern maces made for criminal purposes often have a simplified design and are made of solid metal, which was noted in forensic literature. There are also examples of such homemade maces in the cold arms collection of the Moscow Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

Thus, based on the analysis of historical and forensic sources, the following design features of the mace can be identified. The defining features include:
General design — consists of a pommel and a short shaft (handle). Moreover, these elements can be made separately from each other and then fastened together, or form a single whole.
The total length of the mace is 50 — 100 cm.
The weight of the pommel is not less than 200 g.

Additional features:
The shape of the pommel is spherical, pear-shaped, cylindrical, rectangular.
Features of the pommel design — it can be either smooth, or it can have spikes of various shapes and sizes as additional striking elements.
The presence of a pronounced handle and a loop for fastening to the hand.

In our opinion, the issue of the so-called «bitoks» deserves special consideration. In the first paragraph of this study, we already said that different authors understand the term «bitok» to mean different design devices. Thus, A. N. Samonchik identifies bitoks with maces. E. N. Tikhonov also considers the bitok (bitka) to be a reduced copy of the mace, which appeared as a more portable weapon in the criminal environment, and describes it as follows: «The striking part is usually spherical, without spikes, the rod is hard, straight, the handle at the rod can have a loop and be thickened. The length of the bitok is usually 200-400 mm, the diameter of the striking part is 20-60 mm.» Thus, the indicated authors classify bitoks as rod weapons of concentrated mass. The authors of the dictionary of special terms of forensic examination of cold arms are of the same opinion: «BITOK (BITKA) — a non-standard impact-crushing cold weapon, a reduced copy of a mace. It appeared as a more portable weapon in the criminal environment…».

A.G. Egorov, N.M. Svidlov, Yu.N. Chentsov have a different opinion. They include cue balls in the group of punching weapons with a wrist weight and characterize them as follows: “The cue ball has a thickening at the ends (or a thickening on one of them), which eliminates the possibility of it slipping out of the fist. If there are no thickenings, their function can be performed by a protrusion located in the middle, which, when the fingers are clenched into a fist, fits between them. In this case, the striking part should protrude above the surface of the fist. In practice, there are weapons that combine the features of a cue ball and a knuckle duster.” V.M. Pleskachevsky also joins them. He believes that “…the cue ball has a design resembling half (the handle is divided in the middle part across) of a one- or two-kilogram cast-iron dumbbell… It is possible to propose a hypothesis that the cue ball (bitka) is the second (besides the palm) specific Russian cold weapon type of impact-crushing action.”

A description of a similar device used by «street fighters» is found in A. Vladzimirsky, although he does not call it a cue ball, but a weight — a «lead ball», a «supply» or a «shtof». It is «… an oval or spindle-shaped body cast from metal, sometimes equipped with a spherical knob, a pointed end and/or finger rests, clenched in a fist (while the knob or tip, if any, remains outside).»Thus, objects of different design have two things in common: firstly, they come from the same verb — «to beat». But the same verb also gives the name of the sports equipment — bats, and «bitki», which is used in the children's yard game «v pristenok». In addition, in thieves' jargon, «bita» means a metal palm. And, secondly, both of the considered design types appeared in the criminal environment, which is emphasized by E.N. Tikhonov, the authors of the dictionary of special terms of forensic examination of bladed weapons, and which V.M. Pleskachevsky does not object to.

It seems to us that the relevance of «bitok (bitok)» to cold weapons is highly questionable. In this regard, we proceed from the following considerations: firstly, the constructive content of this term is not clearly defined. And how can we talk about weapons if its design is unknown? Any more or less educated person, having heard the word «mace», «kistene» or even «knuckle duster», imagines the design of the object in question. In relation to the bitok, this is impossible to do. As has already been said, «bitok (bitok)», «bat» can be understood as several types of devices for striking a person, and sports equipment, and a device for children's gambling.

Secondly, the environment in which the bitoks appeared is alarming. It seems to us that it is necessary to clearly distinguish between cold weapons that were used either in combat or hunting to hit a living target, and various means and devices that are used by criminals as weapons to inflict bodily harm.

Thus, we will take the liberty of expressing the idea that a cold weapon of striking and crushing action called «bitok (bitka)» does not exist. In any case, neither in military, nor in military-historical, nor in ethnographic literature, nor, especially, in literature devoted to hunting, there is a weapon with such a name. There is no such concept in GOST R 51215 — 98 «Cold weapons. Terms and definitions». We believe that if an object described by E.N. Tikhonov and the authors of the Dictionary of Special Terms … is received for examination by an expert institution, then it is necessary to conduct its study, applicable to the study of a mace, and already based on specific features, decide the question of whether it is a mace, that is, a cold weapon, or not? As for the objects of the second group, also called «bitkas», in our opinion, they are not bladed weapons, but rather objects of striking and crushing action, specially adapted for use as weapons (in the sense of Article 6 of the Federal Law «On Weapons»).

Pernach or shestoper. Pernach, as a type of cold weapon of concentrated mass, was a further design development of the club and mace. According to P. Winkler, «the club was originally made of strong wood, and its head was covered with nails and metal plates. But such a weapon was not strong enough to pierce armor, so they began to make it of steel and iron, and the head was covered with separate standing ribs; this type of club was called pernach». A. N. Kirpichnikov, as we have already noted above, considers maces with a V1 type pommel as the predecessors of shestopers. Moreover, in literary sources devoted to cold weapons, no serious differences in design features are made between pernach and shestopers. P. Winkler believes: «If there were six feathers, then the weapon was called a shestoper. But sometimes this name was given to a larger number of feathers.

K.V. Asmolov also considers the pernach and the shestoper to be one type of weapon. He also cites some design features of the pernach and shestoper: «The appearance of armor gave rise to the need to increase the penetration of the blow. That is why, from the 14th century, pernachs began to spread more and more widely, which, with the same weight and dimensions of the weapon as a mace, deliver a more concentrated blow with the edge of the combat part, and not its area. The first versions of the shestoper, which appeared in the middle of the 14th century, had a total length of about 60 cm, a triangular cross-section of the ribs, of which there were usually 6 or 7, and weighed 1.8 — 2.7 kg. By the end of the 14th — beginning of the 15th centuries, the shestoper became more «elegant» and approximately halved in weight. It became about an arm long…» According to K. V. Asmolov, the name of the pernach plates — «feathers» — comes from their complex shape, reminiscent of the plumage of an arrow (ibid.).

In forensic literature, only E. N. Tikhonov paid attention to the design features of pernach and shestoper. In his opinion, pernach (feathered) is a “… type of mace, differing from it by the presence of a head with metal feathers-shields (from 4 to 14) on the striking part, served as a combat weapon, as well as a sign of power of military leaders. In the 18th — 17th centuries it was made about 500 mm long, had an iron head with a diameter of 140 mm with 14 feathers.” A description similar to the one given is contained in the dictionary of special terms of forensic examination of bladed weapons. Apparently, the lack of attention to pernach and shestoper as one of the types of bladed weapons of concentrated mass, on the part of criminologists is caused by its extremely rare occurrence in investigative and expert practice. Among the conclusions we have studied on the study of non-bladed objects, neither pernachs nor shestopers were encountered.

At the same time, based on the analysis of literary sources, the following design features of pernachs and shestopers can be identified. The defining features include:
General design — consists of a pommel and a short shaft (handle). Moreover, these elements can be made either separately from each other and then fastened together, or form a single whole.
The pommel is made of metal plates placed with their edges facing each other.
The number of plates is from 4 to 14 for pernachi and 6 for shestopery.
The total length is 50–80 cm.
The weight of the pommel is at least 200 g.

Additional features:
The shape of the plates («feathers») is triangular, quadrangular, complex.
The presence of a handle and a loop.

Clubs (truncheons). V.M. Pleskachevsky drew attention to the inaccuracy of this term, which denotes a certain group of core objects: «Obviously, the wording «club (truncheon)» is not entirely accurate. It seems that these are actually two close, but to a certain extent independent varieties of cold weapons of striking and crushing action. Above, we considered the club as an example of a historical weapon that was obsolete even in ancient times. The truncheon can be recognized as a design type of a modern weapon, which is in service with law enforcement agencies or is manufactured for use in criminal purposes. There are English terms for the police type of truncheons — baton or club. In the forensic literature, there are no established ideas about the police truncheon.»

The terms «club and truncheon» were united by E. N. Tikhonov in 1987. Previously, all authors writing about impact-crushing cold weapons, including E. N. Tikhonov himself in his early works of 1976 and 1983, spoke only about batons. In 1976, having classified them into civilian and police, he cited three types of batons:
A club made of rubber covered with reed, with a handle made of braided rope (length 380 mm, weight 50 g).
The same club, but with a metal nickel-plated tip (length 380 mm, weight 90 g).
A club made of gray rubber, with lead sewn on the edges (length 250 mm, weight 300 g). (Here, in the text, there was apparently a typo, which V. M. Pleskachevsky drew attention to — the club is filled with lead).

It seems to us that, judging by the drawings and description given by E. N. Tikhonov, clubs 1 and 2 are not cold weapons at all due to their insignificant weight and the material from which they are made. True, V. M. Pleskachevsky believes that the «striking part in the form of a metal tip makes the second club a mace, and the thickening of the third makes it a rubber club.» With regard to the third «club,» V. M. Pleskachevsky and I agree: this is a cold weapon — a club or, rather, a mace.

In 1987, E. N. Tikhonov formulated the following concept: «CLUDE (CLUDE) is the most ancient striking cold weapon, which had a straight or slightly curved rod, the same or slightly different in thickness in different areas, sometimes with a thickened or weighted striking end. Ancient clubs were made of wood, with a stone attached to the end. In the 20th century, batons became widespread in a number of countries as civilian or police weapons, they are made of rubber and other plastic materials and have little flexibility.» And then E. N. Tikhonov gives the parameters of some of these batons: a cylindrical body 15 — 25 mm thick, the length of civilian batons is 250 — 400 mm, police batons 400 — 500 mm. The handle is equipped with a belt loop, some samples have a metal tip or an internal metal rod. The concept proposed by E. N. Tikhonov reproduced the concept of a club (truncheon) literally in the dictionary of special terms of forensic examination of cold arms. It should be noted that the authors of the dictionary do not classify all clubs as cold arms. For example, calling the domestic rubber baton PR-73 a club, they state: «although it is intended to inflict bodily harm, due to its limited damaging qualities it is not a cold weapon». Thus, the authors of the dictionary are clearly mixing up three concepts — a club, a truncheon, which, in the opinion of the authors of the dictionary, are cold arms, and special means of law enforcement agencies.

We, like V. M. Pleskachevsky, believe that «club» and «truncheon» are close, but not equivalent concepts. At the same time, it is difficult to agree that they denote two independent types of cold weapons with impact-crushing action. Rather, in our opinion, it would be more correct to talk about two independent groups of devices that are objects of expert examination.

The club was one of the first, and possibly the first, weapons of man, the prototype of all other types of striking cold weapons. Apparently, a simple wooden club was the only weapon for a long time. However, over time, the effectiveness of its use ceased to satisfy man, it was modernized, turned first into a club, then into a mace, etc. «It,» according to V. M. Pleskachevsky, «was essentially a transitional object between an unprocessed branch, naturally of sufficient mass and size, and a weapon that had undergone at least minimal processing.» These types of weapons were discussed above. And the club in its pure form, as a weapon, completely lost its meaning. Therefore, it seems to us that at present it makes no practical sense to talk about the club as an independent type of cold weapon of concentrated mass. The attributes of a club — a wooden rod, straight or slightly curved, with a thickening, a certain mass — do not allow differentiating a club from an ordinary large stick. It is unlikely that an expert trained in the forensic examination of bladed weapons will evaluate a wooden stick, even of significant mass and with a serious thickening in the form of a butt, as a bladed weapon. As a result, we believe it is appropriate to exclude the club from the weapons forensic classification.

It is especially necessary to dwell on such a core object of forensic research as a baton. For the first time in forensic literature about the core object — a baton as a cold weapon were written by A.I. Ustinov, M.E. Portnov, E.N. Denisov. They characterized it as follows: «A baton is a piece of wood with one thickened, heavier end. To give greater striking force, a stone was tied to the weighted end of the baton. In the late 19th — early 20th centuries, first wooden and then rubber batons were adopted by police units in European countries.» Here, the authors also provide the dimensional characteristics of such truncheons: diameter 1.5 — 2.5 mm and length 40 — 50 cm. As an illustration, they provide a wooden truncheon from the 17th century with a metal tip, a rubber truncheon used by the Gestapo, and two homemade rubber truncheons — one with a metal tip, and the other filled with lead.

It seems to us that the authors mentioned are making a typology error, at least in the first two objects. Judging by the drawing, the «17th century club» is a mace with a slightly curved shaft, and the «club used by the Gestapo» is an ordinary rubber baton, i.e. a special tool, in modern language. As for the other two objects, it is difficult to evaluate them based on the drawings without knowing many of their design features.

Yu. P. Goldovansky and H. M. Takho-Godi, also believing that batons are impact-crushing cold weapons, specify that they «consist of either a wooden rod and a metal tip, or a rubber tube with a metal rod inside. Police batons are manufactured industrially from polyethylene or rubber.» In principle, A. S. Podshibyakin gives similar descriptions of batons in his works of 1980 and 1997. We have already mentioned the position of E. N. Tikhonov above.

In 1992, P. A. Dyakonov and V. V. Ponomarev, agreeing with the generally accepted assessment of the baton as an impact-crushing weapon, pointed out the need for a pronounced handle and loop as one of the design features of the baton.

V.N. Popenko, having titled one of his books «Police Cold Weapons. Batons», gives the following characteristics of batons, which are «in service» with the police: «The following materials are used for its production: rubber, wood, plastic. The length of such a baton varies from 50 to 60 cm, weight 600 — 800 grams. It can have a strictly cylindrical shape without a handle, or with a handle, designated only by a notch, or have a variable diameter (with a thickening towards the end) and with a clearly defined handle, which can be about 1/3 of the total length of the baton. The last version of the baton is the most common.»A. Taras and A. Vladzimirsky define a baton as a round or faceted cross-section stick made of hard wood (oak, hornbeam, beech, etc.), with a total length of 30–80 cm and a diameter of 2.5–5 cm. K. V. Asmolov also classifies modern telescopic devices—rubber and metal—as batons.

In some literary sources, batons also include lathi — long bamboo canes with a metal tip, traditionally used by Indian police during mass riots. Lathi wielding technique involves the ability to deflect flying stones and inflict bleeding wounds on the enemy.

V.M. Pleskachevsky, analyzing the above and some other sources devoted to batons and their practical use, comes to the following conclusion: «Thus, we can model the following idea of ​​a police baton. If it is really a weapon of striking and crushing action (highlighted by us — author), then it should be possible to inflict at least some of the injuries described above, in particular, certain bone fractures. This is ensured by the following design qualities of police batons:
Length of at least 40 cm and diameter of 2.5 — 3 cm.
Cylindrical shape, without thickening in the striking part.
Material — hard wood and plastic.
High rigidity of the entire structure (ability to resist transverse bending upon impact).
Expressed to one degree or another handle part.»

As already noted, we also previously believed that batons are cold weapons of impact and crushing action. At present, we have revised our position and consider our opinion about batons, expressed in the dictionary of basic terms and definitions of cold weapon examination, to be erroneous.

First of all, in our opinion, in literature, both in forensic and especially in popular literature, there is a certain substitution of concepts: special means of striking action used by law enforcement forces are called cold weapons. Batons, tonfas, kubotans are called such weapons. All these objects are indeed in one combination or another «in service» and are used in the work of the police (militia) and some military units (in our country — in the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), but only as special means for performing strictly defined tasks.

We have already shown above that the objects that A. I. Ustinov, M. E. Portnov, and E. N. Denisov united under the term «truncheons» belong to different classification groups: cold arms (clubs) and special means: rubber truncheons. The truncheons that E. N. Tikhonov calls «civilian» and «police» cold arms are not, in fact, cold arms at all. In 1994, V. N. Popenko published two books under the general heading «Police Cold Arms» — about tonfas and truncheons. However, a careful analysis of these works shows that their content does not correspond to the loud title. Already in the preface to the first book, V. N. Popenko writes: «The correct use of this means (referring to the PR-24 — author) will allow you to defend yourself reliably and without the risk of killing, forcing submission under threat of force, but not death (highlighted by the author).» And then the entire content of both books is devoted to methods of defense against blows, escorting, extracting an enemy from a car, pain, suffocation, etc. techniques. Thus, there is an obvious substitution of the concept of special means with the term «cold weapons», and rubber and wooden sticks — with the term «truncheons». But the purposes of using these means and the intended purpose of cold weapons are different.

V. M. Pleskachevsky, examining the problem of truncheons in his monograph, cites the opinion of the American specialist Rex Applegate on the use of truncheons in the fight against mass riots: «R. Applegate notes that the use of a rifle with a fixed bayonet in this case does not produce results or causes public protests due to the severity of the damage inflicted… Therefore, he recommends that instead of a rifle with a bayonet, arming a special (militarized) police with a two-handed truncheon 26 to 36 inches long (i.e. from 68 to 94 cm) and one and a quarter inches (4 cm) thick, made of medium-weight, hard wood such as hickory (American walnut) or ash… R. Applegate believes that with the help of such a truncheon almost all techniques are possible, as with a rifle — strikes with various parts, jabs, defenses and restraining the enemy. Its belt (lanyard) together with the baton is suitable for tying up a detainee. As can be seen, in this case we are again talking about using a wooden baton not as a weapon in combat, but as a special police tool for combating mass riots, when the use of weapons for one reason or another seems inappropriate.

Thus, we believe that the assessment of a rubber, plastic or wooden truncheon (or, more precisely, a stick with a handle and a loop) as a cold weapon of striking and crushing action is erroneous and leads to a broad interpretation of cold weapons. In practice, this leads to expert, investigative and judicial errors. Such objects have a special purpose — to neutralize the active actions of the enemy by striking him, including painful ones, blocks, grabs, etc. But they do not have the main target purpose of the weapon — defeating the enemy, therefore such devices should, in our opinion, be considered as special means of limited (metered) striking action.

V.K. Asmolov, describing the techniques of working with sticks and poles, which he sometimes also calls clubs, writes: “Naturally, poles and sticks can be used not only as weapons (by weapons in the broad sense, K.V. Asmolov understands all objects that are used in oriental martial arts — author), but also as training equipment or devices for therapeutic gymnastics, developing the muscular corset, massage of the spine, feet, palms, etc. So, for example, the Chinese “stick of the Great Rework” taijibang 30 — 50 cm long and up to 5 cm in diameter is known and popular today not as a weapon, but as a “projectile” for performing various sets of health and therapeutic exercises in qigong”. The signs of taijibang, cited by K.V. Asmolov — they almost completely fit into the characteristics of a «cold weapon — a baton».

V.M. Pleskachevsky, citing a set of design features of a baton, quite rightly, in our opinion, expresses certain doubts about its relevance to a weapon of impact-crushing action. However, he recommends using this set when recognizing homemade batons: «The compliance of each specific specimen with this set of characteristics, clearly not manufactured in factory conditions, will allow us to classify it as a weapon of impact-crushing action.»

It seems to us that this recommendation can hardly be implemented in the production of examinations of cold arms. The first four features identified by V. M. Pleskachevsky practically do not allow differentiating a baton as a weapon from an ordinary wooden stick, a stool leg, a plastic rod, a section of vacuum hose or an electric cable. The fifth feature — a handle part expressed to one degree or another — does not affect the damaging properties of such objects in any way, but simply makes them objects specially adapted for use for some specific purposes.

Thus, we propose to exclude from the forensic classification of cold arms, along with the baton, also the baton. It seems that when assessing rod objects of this type, it is necessary, first of all, to proceed from the method of its manufacture. If the object is manufactured industrially, then it should be assessed as a special means of the police (militia) — a rubber (or other material) baton. If the object is homemade, then if it has a pronounced handle, it should, in our opinion, be assessed as an object specially adapted for use as a weapon (in the sense of Article 6 of the Federal Law «On Weapons»).

Tonfa (tuifa, tunfa). Originates from a millstone used by peasants on Okinawa Island. It is a wooden rod with an asymmetrically located perpendicular handle. The first to describe tonfa as a cold weapon in forensic literature were A. I. Ustinov and V. V. Filippov. True, they did not provide any size or weight characteristics, but noted that, like nunchaku, tonfa is effective only with high mastery of combat techniques. The concept of tonfa was similarly formulated by P. A. Dyakonov and V. V. Ponomarev.

K.V. Asmolov gives the following dimensional and design characteristics of the tonfa: «The length of a standard tonfa ranges from 46 to 56 cm. The height of the side handle is equal to the length of the short end of the tonfa and is on average the width of a fist plus two fingers. The oldest versions of the tonfa had a square or rectangular cross-section, repeating the shape of its agricultural counterpart. With the development of the tonfa as a weapon, the emphasis on strong blows with a sharp edge was supplanted by the desire to increase the versatility of the tonfa…, which, accordingly, became round or rounded in cross-section.»V.N. Popenko considers the modern tonfa to be a «multifunctional police cold weapon made of various high-quality materials, such as monpak plastic, aluminum, and other modern materials. The total length of the tonfa is 60 cm, 3 cm in diameter, and the weight is from 600 to 800 g, depending on the materials used.»

Speaking in his monograph about the problem of the tonfa, V. M. Pleskachevsky proposes a differentiated approach to the forensic assessment of such objects, depending on the material from which they are made: “It seems that a tonfa made of wood is traditionally correctly classified as a cold weapon with a striking and crushing action, while rubber and plastic ones are only classified as special means.”

A. M. Sumaroka, A. V. Stalmakhov, A. G. Egorov, describing the tonfa in the chapter devoted to non-bladed cold weapons, also conclude that «… tonfas made of rubber or plastic are used as police special equipment. Such tonfas do not belong to cold weapons, since they exclude the infliction of crushing damage». Consequently, it can be assumed that tonfas made of other materials are considered cold weapons by the aforementioned authors.

As noted above, in 1992 we were of the opinion that tonfa, including rubber, is a cold weapon of impact-crushing action. At present, taking into account new literary sources that have appeared, changes in legislation, study and generalization of expert practice, we must reconsider our position. While fully agreeing with V. M. Pleskachevsky and the authors of the textbook «Cold and Throwing Weapons» that rubber and plastic tonfas are special means of law enforcement agencies, we at the same time see no reason to assess wooden tonfas as cold weapons of impact-crushing action. Firstly, the use of tonfa requires special skills in its use. Otherwise, the effectiveness of using tonfa is close to the effectiveness of using an ordinary stick, and sometimes even lower. K. V. Asmolov emphasizes: «… the force of a sweeping blow (with a tonfa — author) is not as great as with a fixed blow with a stick. And the high speed of movement of the weapon and the ability to stop it at the right moment due to a slight squeeze of the handle, interrupting the rotation, are more difficult to develop than when working with an ordinary stick. Therefore, this type of weapon is a weapon of combat, not military, arts, that is, a means of self-defense or an individual weapon of individual masters (highlighted by the author), or special units like the medieval Japanese police».

Secondly, the wooden tonfa in its «combat» characteristics is in no way superior to modern police tonfas — neither in size, nor in rigidity, nor in weight. Modern rubber tonfas, as a rule, have a metal frame, which ensures the reliability of the entire structure. Without it, the fastening of the perpendicular handle would be unreliable. And this, in turn, increases the rigidity of the tonfa and its weight. V. M. Pleskachevsky cites the weight of some rubber truncheons of domestic production: PR-90 — 820 g, universal truncheon — up to 700 g. In recent years, NPO «Tekhnika» of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia has been producing a multifunctional truncheon (tonfa), designed to equip employees of internal affairs agencies. Structurally, it consists of a hollow shockproof body with a side handle, plugs on the ends and a special outer coating. Inside there is a flashlight, a knife and a metal striking element. The weight of such a tonfa is up to 1500 g. Similar multifunctional sticks (tonfas) have been produced abroad for many years, in particular, in Germany and France.

Thus, we believe that a wooden tonfa is not a cold weapon with a striking and crushing action and should also be excluded from the forensic weapons classification. We propose the same expert approach to assessing a tonfa as for batons — first of all, based on the method of its manufacture. If the tonfa is manufactured industrially, then it should be assessed as a special police (militia) tool — a rubber (or other material) multifunctional baton. If the tonfa is homemade, then, in our opinion, it should be assessed as an object specially adapted for use as a weapon (in the sense of Article 6 of the Federal Law «On Weapons»).

War hammers. War hammers are the oldest cold weapons with a striking and crushing action. They were widely used in Europe, Persia, India, and the countries of Southeast Asia. Initially, it was an ordinary blacksmith's hammer on a long handle. But gradually, improvements began to be made to its design: sharp spikes, spear-shaped tips, hooks («beaks») appeared on the iron, allowing not only crushing blows, but also piercing armor with a piercing blow. War hammers were most widely used in Europe in the 14th century due to the spread of plate armor. Infantrymen used a hammer with a long shaft and weighing up to 14 kg, cavalrymen used a lighter and shorter hammer. Such hammers had different names — «crow's beak», «parrot's beak», «falcon's beak», «chekan», «klevets». War hammers were used until the 17th century, being a weapon of striking and crushing action, as well as a symbol of dignity and power.

In 1987, E. N. Tikhonov drew attention to combat hammers in forensic literature, placing only their drawings in Appendix No. 1 «Cold weapons of obsolete types and varieties». Apparently, this is explained by the fact that in investigative and expert practice, combat hammers are not encountered in their «classic» form. V. M. Pleskachevsky writes: «Forensic practice knows of cases of wearing and using household hammers to inflict damage … However, the possibility of manufacturing hammers that do not structurally correspond to household models cannot be ruled out, and wearing such an object can be regarded as illegal armament.» Thus, in practice, the problem of differentiating ordinary household hammers and combat hammers (most likely, of a simplified design) may arise.It seems to us that the forensic assessment of an object of striking action as a war hammer is possible only in two cases: 1) when the object is completely homemade; 2) if an industrially manufactured hammer has serious design changes, for example, a welded-on sharp spike or hook. Moreover, these changes must exclude the possibility of or seriously complicate the use of the hammer for its intended purpose.

All other changes, for example, replacing the handle with a longer one, changing the shape of the handle, attaching a loop to it, etc. cannot, in our opinion, be considered the manufacture of a war hammer.

Thus, in our opinion, only clubs, maces, pernaches (shestopery) and war hammers are certainly classified as rod-type cold weapons of striking and crushing action. The cudgel, although it was the most ancient cold weapon, should currently be excluded from the weapons classification, since its expert recognition is almost impossible. Also, in our opinion, so-called batons and wooden tonfas, which are essentially ordinary sticks with some “improvements” and are objects specially adapted for use as weapons, should be excluded from the list of cold weapons.