Try using a LMG..it sucks. You pretty much are stuck camping in one spot. Anytime you move if someone sees you, you die. The ADS time is horrid, hip firing isn't an option, the spray is too bad, and you run slow. I use mine on CTF for defense, if your dying to it alot, stop running the same way everytime and come from a different direction. I kill people constantly because they act like there is only one way to get to the flag.
Use all the time and stay mobile....you just don't know how to use them is all. I prefer them to all weapons for mid range work.
Yep. Don't people study Newtonian physics in school these days? Then again, people say Edison invented the lightbulb and Einstein split the atom so I won't get my hopes up.
It's not that simple. The additional weight of a scope is nothing compared to the overall weight of an AR or especially an LMG.
Plus think about the basic geometry of the triangle formed between your line of sight, your target, and your barrel's new line of sight after a "jump" of recoil. Even with the same "jump" (aka physical recoil, assuming recoil is just upward, for simplicity, though it doesn't weaken the argument), the further out your target is from you, the greater the perception of the actual/physical "jump" of the gun. Picture the right triangle described before -- as the vertical line gets further away, your triangle continues to get taller, right? ad infinitum, if you continue to move your target (and thus your vertical line) away.
In other words, a scope stretches out your vision to a longer distance (duh, right?). Looking down that longer line of sight, any movement of the barrel of your gun would result in a proportionately larger impact on your perceived recoil. Obviously the gun wouldn't physically jump more just b/c a scope was added, but if you're ADS, the perceived jump of recoil would/should be bigger.
LMGs are slow, cumbersome and can get you killed during long reloads. Even though they can be absoloute killing machines they have enough drawbacks to balance them out.