While not good enough to start the page properly, a few photos from set have been leaked, showing Deadpool dual wielding Desert Eagles, this is probably the best one.
--RedRobinAlpha (talk) 21:58, 06 April 2015 (GMT)
What's the source of this image? Is it legit? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
I don't think so, a lot of the other images look like they where taken by onlookers, this is the closest to 'official' looking of the bunch, got a few other I can post if you're interested, but they are all kinda similar. --RedRobinAlpha (talk) 23:04, 06 April 2015 (GMT)
Can't have those here, sorry. Only authorized BTS images are allowed. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
My bad, thought that only went for the main pages not the talk page, changed it so it links to an outside source. Uploaded the others as well here and here --RedRobinAlpha (talk) 23:30, 06 April 2015 (GMT)
If Deadpool never takes off his mask (and I'm not sure he ever does), then wouldn't this basically just be a voice acting gig for Ryan Reynolds? --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Deadpool does take off his mask in the comics quite frequently, but his face is horribly disfigured. I would imagine they're going to do a lot of make-up work so he can remove the mask at some point. Who knows if it will even be Ryan Reynolds in the makeup if they do that. DeadpoolDeadcool (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
He will be removing his mask in the movie, just like in the comic, and it will be Ryan Reynolds, both in the costume (except for stunt work), and out as you can see here looks like they're not gonna make him quite as disfigured as he is in the comics, although they could always add more via CGI or it might just be that this photo was taken from real far away. --RedRobinAlpha (talk) 12:30, 07 April 2015 (GMT)
Just got back from watching the movie and the weapons I noticed that aren't listed on the page are;
A 1911 (looked similar to a Para-Ordnance LDA)
Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket Nickel with pearl grips
What looks like a M249 SAW Paratrooper
UTAS UTS-15
A Glock (I think 19)
An M72 LAW
There was a scene with Wade loading up a bag where you see a whole bunch of weapons, but all are only for a second and where hard to catch. Same with a scene where a bunch of people draw weapons in a bar. --RedRobinAlpha (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2016 (GMT)
I caught what looked like a AUG in the bag. --SeanWolf (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Even if anyone sees this is AK, it is clear. However, is there the person who can identify a detailed type ? I think the 5.56 or 5.45mm AK rifle with East-German type folding stock. Does this AK wonder Made Romania ? --KINKI'boy (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (JST)
From the film, it looked like a Galil when it was posted on a wall. Inceptor57 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
From what I can see it's a Norinco Type 84S fitted with an AKS-74 folding stock and modern black polymer furniture. Worryingly, it seems its barrel is cut down (along with the front sight) and the whole front of the gas system is gone! Mr. Wolf (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
There are two different AKs in this section. The one leaning in the corner of the bathroom appears to be a Galil SAR. However, it has a AK style mag which is incorrect for a SAR as this isn't available in 7.62x39mm. I believe that this indicates that the gun is an airsoft, as these have an AK type magazine well so that you can use these magazine rather than a proprietary Galil one. There was another movie or show that did the same for a non firing Galil recently but I can't remember what it was off of the top of my head. As for the one in the bag, I can't quite tell what is going on with the front, but the stock isn't off of an AKS-74. These fold to the left side of the gun, the release button comes out of the left side of the receiver and the hinge is different. A lot of folding stocks for AKs have the stock mount protrude some distance past the rear of the receiver (the mechanism to lock the stock has to be somewhere) but this one doesn't seem to which should narrow it down, but I can't come up with a match. --commando552 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
Think I found it, I believe that it is a Norinco Type 84S-2 (backed up by the magazine. This type of stock folds to the right, and if you compare the folding mechanism it looks like a match. This is a relatively uncommon gun that nobody makes a replica of, so the sawing the front off is even weirder.--commando552 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
I see it now, I feel dumb for forgetting the AKS-74 stock folds to the left... Mr. Wolf (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
Yes, this is a Type 84-2 (movie was filmed in British Columbia, and they use Type 84s very often). And the weapon is not sawed off. You are seeing Deadpool's elbow/sleeve blocking the front of the gun. I don't think anyone would "saw off" a rifle in such a weird way, even if one believes that the armorer went to the trouble of trying to shorten the gun so that it could fit in the bag. -MT2008 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
Wade's 1911
I'm 99% certain that his 1911 has a double stack magazine, which makes me think it's a Para. Bristow8411 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
I believe that it is specifically an early model P14.45 Limited with the vertical slide serrations, like this one:Error creating thumbnail: File missingIncidentally, the clearest image that show that it is a double stack is actually this one as it shows the frame step ahead of the pistol grip which is the tell tale sign of a double stack design. --commando552 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
I'm not 100%, but I do not think the hook style safeties indicates that these are an earlier model, but instead that it is an IWI made gun (backed up by the grips) rather than a Magnum Research. I believe that most of Deadpool was shot in Canada so they would have easier access to actually Israeli imported guns. --commando552 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
Whoever did the description in the pic is wrong, as it's an IWI model in .44 Magnum, fixing now. Mr. Wolf (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
I wrote that, and I guess I was wrong. But whoever added the new description needs to do a bit more editing (or I will do so); it is now almost unreadable. -MT2008 (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
