https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoG RlS53U_k >this is a

>>34192741
It would be extremely effective at wasting money.

>>34192741
>would a bullet camera be effective for combat use?
For what purpose? I can't think of anything it would be useful for, but maybe someone can.

recon, maybe?

>>34192741
No

>>34192786
What are you, 12?
Even more dumb than what OP asked

>>34192741
For what purpose?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHn1zogeyO4

They exist. How do you think the intro to Lord of War was filmed?

>>34192741
>pull trigger
>dudes dead let's see the footage
>half second and then it all goes black
>well worth the 300 dollaridoos

Why do you need a bullet to tell if you hit a guy? Obviously if he is lying on the floor the bullet hit him.

>>34193345
cgi?

>>34192902
>maybe there are guys on the other side of that mountain
>I don't want to climb a mountain just to find out
>I'll just shoot over the mountain

>>34192741
Maybe if you integrated it with a larger round like .50BMG that had some sort of self-guidance, you could get some JDAM-esque shit going on.

Why bother doing serious windage calculations and drop calcs for an extreme long range when you can just lob that fucker in the general area and let the bullet do all the work mid-flight?

>>34194080
>let me pop off a few rounds to let everyone around know where I am.
>to see if there are enemies in the general area where im shooting
>actually not really sure maybe they are friendly or perhaps just local livestock
>fire a few camera rounds at them to find out.
>couldnt quite make out the unit patch: not familiar with that shape and color of diamond dogs. Better walk the rounds closer.
>wait how do we retrieve the footage?
>thank god for darpa-level network technologies
>unit cost: $17,000 american pesos
>avg flight time: 3 seconds.

>once per rotation
So, a camera that shoots thousands of frames per second in a bullet-sized package? With room for a transmitter?

Technical feasibility aside, it would travel for a few seconds at most before it hits something. A drone would be infinitely more useful. Even an off the shelf disposable one.

>>34194727
Yeah but drones are old news now, bullet cam is new and cooler, driving technology forward.

>>34193980
Not to mention it would be spinning like a motherfucker and a half.

>>34194203
You're thinking of a missile.

So no one remembers that grenade launcher camera?

>>34194767
>bullet cam is new and cooler, driving technology forward.
if you are twelve
>I want to look at something from a distance
>oh I know, I open fire at that direction
>hopefully these bullets capture some sick 3 second footage of themselves hitting dirt
>what do you mean they cost $500/rd
>imagine teabagging your enemy after watching the footage of a confimed kill
>too bad the enemies won't see my teabagging unless I shoot myself with the same bullet

>>34194203
>this
only as a tool for recon or mapping out ranges when a sniper team are doping a position but other than that no

>>34194727
You could make a 40mm grenade launcher fired parachute flare with a camera and transmitter. Disposable bird's eye view of an area and at night it would provide a decent amount of visible light.

That said, I can't imagine bothering with that over a disposable aerostat drone. a simple helium balloon on a 200 meter tether could drag a small sensor package up and have very long endurance.