First of all, they sound amazing and behave very accurately to their real counterparts (when on a bipod at least). They feel good and there is mostly just one issue..

The new default mag sizes on the M240B and MG3 leave much to be desired in terms of spare mags and total round-count.

When all you have is 3 mags and each of those holds 50 (unlike the 100 on the older LMG's) unless you go extended, you're stuck with a total round-count that's pretty tame overall considering it's an LMG, when you could just got for something like a rifleman with the same ammo-count in an extended as the LMG default, but have up to 7 mags then.
M4 or AKM with extended - without:

• no carrier: 3 mags
  total round count 150 - 90 with normal mags
• light carrier: 5 mags
  total round count 250 - 150 with normal mags
• heavy carrier: 7 mags
  total round counts 350 - 210 with normal mags

M240B or MG3 with extended - without:

• no carrier: 1 mag
  total round count 50 - 100
• light carrier: 2 mags
  total round count 100 - 200
• heavy carrier: 3 mags
  total round count 150 - 300

SAW-gunners usually carry in the around 1000 rounds (most commonly in 200-round belts), carrying not even a third of it and being slowed down as much as the gunner class is, is pretty weird.

So I suggest doing the following changes:

• no carrier mag count normal/extended:
  2 mags/1 mag (100 rounds/100 rounds)
• light carrier mag count normal/extended:
  4 mags/3 mags (200 rounds/300 rounds)
• heavy carrier mag count normal extended:
  6 mags/5 mags (300 rounds/500 rounds)

And for the old LMG's that don't have the mag options:

• Just following the extended version of the new ones for their default ammo-count mag-count increase
• Giving them 200 round extended options with or without the new mag-counts
• Alternatively the M249 could get a SureFire-magazine option to put their 60-rounders (or their 100-rounders for faster reloading at the cost of even more supply points) into the STANAG-mag compatible "magazine sleeve" it has

Surefire 60-rounder:

Just making them feel far less lackluster considering what role they're supposed to fill, and at least having the option for spending the supply points on such rather than ending up with a mediocre kitting on the LMG and a fully kitted out mall-ninja sidearm

.
Edit: The bipods need improving, the limited vertical angle of aiming on them is pretty detrimental, particularly when you are prone in a decline and you can't aim down the decline you're prone on, needs to be addressed for all bipods.

What I feel is weird about the LMGs that even though NWI said they reduced the recoil of the M249, it still climbs like a fighter jet at full thrust.
This picture just speaks for itself:

On the left we have a rifle from the 60s with a wooden stock, that is known for kicking like a horse, with a larger caliber. On the left we have a 7.5 kg LMG with 5.56x45 caliber.
This recoil for the M249 is ONLY acceptable if the AKM is given this exact same recoil, or better yet, all guns get this much recoil. What is the point of the gunner class at this point?

EDIT:
Just checked it out, even when you're proning with a bipod deployed you get MORE recoil then before. With the M249 before the update, you could place relatively precise shots, now you can't even do that. As for the M240B... Jesus Fucking Christ. It's like NWI gave me the weapon of the A10 Warthog, except that it doesn't do as much damage. Seriously what were you thinking, it's uncontrolable...
I advise every player to try and land a shot with the M240B with an ACOG scope attached.
Noob version: try it at over 100 meters with the bipod deployed
Pro version: try it standing up

@sgt-kanyo Having fired it in the military, I can say for sure.. the thing barely moves due to it's weight, so the recoil is clearly a misguided attempt at balance. If there is one thing the M249/FN MINIMI has, it's a LOT of micro-recoil (aka a lot of vibrations causing it to almost vibrate constantly and for the most part stay close to the point of aim but wobble around it in micro-vibration fashion per se, if that makes any sense?)

Considering how low their ammo count is, giving them far lower recoil would be a nice way to make up for it, but they absolutely need to be slowing down movement far far more, you can run for too long and too fast with them for it to make sense. Lots of ways to balance it, but there are a lot of people that are militant in their defense of the irrational recoil it has.. which I have commented on a plethora of other ways to balance it before, but oh well you can't sway the irrational ones to a rational view I guess.

They don't even give us an option to put on firegrips and spend supply points to deal with recoil, which is annoying. Not even giving us the option to make the sacrifice elsewhere in our loadout to make it more to our liking...

@mainfold said in An assessment of the new LMG's:

@sgt-kanyo Having fired it in the military, I can say for sure.. the thing barely moves due to it's weight, so the recoil is clearly a misguided attempt at balance. If there is one thing the M249/FN MINIMI has, it's a LOT of micro-recoil (aka a lot of vibrations causing it to almost vibrate constantly and for the most part stay close to the point of aim but wobble around it in micro-vibration fashion per se, if that makes any sense?)

Considering how low their ammo count is, giving them far lower recoil would be a nice way to make up for it, but they absolutely need to be slowing down movement far far more, you can run for too long and too fast with them for it to make sense. Lots of ways to balance it, but there are a lot of people that are militant in their defense of the irrational recoil it has.. which I have commented on a plethora of other ways to balance it before, but oh well you can't sway the irrational ones to a rational view I guess.

They don't even give us an option to put on firegrips and spend supply points to deal with recoil, which is annoying. Not even giving us the option to make the sacrifice elsewhere in our loadout to make it more to our liking...

I think in CTE they managed to slow it down. Then again when I'm playing with the gunner class I always have heavy armor and heavy carrier on, so that might be the reason why. Slowing down the gunner class is actually a good idea. Also I could pimp the shit out of my M249 in Sandstorm, although the only thing it needs is either a scope or a holo sight and I still have shitton of supply points which I can't spend. So maybe increasing the M249's price would be a good way to balance it?

yeah i agree that LMG's should be balanced outside of "give them horrendous recoil" way. We already only get 1 per squad, and anyone can die from a couple bullets to the chest making being a LMG guy suicidal really. My essentially no recoil M16 on single shot will win 95% of engagements vs a LMG. At any range or situation.

@fearthemoose Not to mention how their majority effective range isn't even available as a range to be used on most maps, where you're optimally wanting a range where a 3x or 4x optic is desired, but so few maps have those ranges even available, and running into close quarters with horrendous recoil on top of it, makes them not really excel.