But can't that argument be applied to any shooter-style game - they're meant to be a "simulation" of the world that game is set in (CoD, Doom, whatever), and "real" guns in those worlds would be "realistic" for that world, etc, etc, etc.... all the same "realism" points (direction brass flies, physics, etc) would still apply. Well except for the most super-scifi ones, where everything operates on magic in the first place.
(as an aside, I tend to separate "games" and "simulations". It would never occur to me to look at a Fallout game from the standpoint of "this is a simulation, therefore ______"... hence why I'm not bothered by a lack of eat/sleep/drink "primary needs" features, or a Frostfall-like cold & exposure system, etc...)
It really is interesting, on forums, seeing the very-different viewpoints of other people. As someone not incredibly familiar with guns (as I mentioned earlier, I only shot a few, and not for over a decade), I can't imagine being so bothered by what seems like an un-noticably trivial detail, that I'd avoid an entire class of gun because of it. Especially a very useful class of gun.
But like I said, different people, different experiences/viewpoints.
(I suppose, for me, this would fit in the category of "acceptable breaks from reality". I understand that the gun animations are easier to make that way, and that it's "just a game", and let it go...)