It comes down to the same problem. The Orion is better than the two other starter LMGs.
It is different and the difference happens to favor the most common combat scenario. The SAW is vastly superior at 60m which is small comfort when the need to take shots at more than 50m is pretty rare.
A specialist short ranged weapon like the Orion is at its best in the most common circumstance a heavy will find cause to start slinging bullets at people. It is also perfectly competent at moderate ranges and combat at the range where the orion is truly at a disadvantage is something you can avoid almost entirely with ease.
It isn't that the Orion is better - it is that there is so little need to fight in the situations where the Orion is lacking that is the fundamental problem.
You forget that a Butcher user still has to find nearly 6 seconds of downtime to reload, no matter how many bullets he has left in the mag.
So long as a butcher user has > 48 rounds in a mag they are in no greater need of reloading than a Betelgeuse user is.
The scenario in which one magdumps 50 bullets in full-auto basically never happens considering we're talking about mostly decent players.
Of the top Betelgeuse users by KDR, not even one of them manages a SPK low enough that you could guarantee a second kill per "reload". By SPK, only the top ten manage the feat. Sure, you plan it right and you always have 48 rounds waiting.
By that logic Ravens and Fractures are balanced because Fractures are better at close range.
Entirely different example. Ravens are superior because they can be used at a range where vehicles cannot defend themselves. There are a host of reasons why tanks would be foolish to get within effective fracture range. What's more, these two weapons are designed for the same job - both are the long range AV weapon for the Max but one of them is vastly superior at this job.
By contrast, the Gauss Saw is explicitly a long ranged weapon and the Orion a short ranged one so the comparison
is apples and oranges to apples and a shitty soggy rotten apple.
This has nothing to do with how weapons available to the same faction are balanced, it's about balance between factions
The GD-7F has equivalents in the VS and TR kit. The Orion has equivalents (Anchor, MSW-R). The Gauss Saw has equivalents (Ursa, Bull/TMG-50).
You are trying to compare guns that are at their best in entirely different circumstances to one another.
To put this a different way, yes, the Betelgeuse is superior to the Butcher any time the two weapons can be used for consistent headshots. The instant that stops being true, basically moderate ranges and beyond, the Butcher is the superior choice.
The problem that you have is literally that these three guns are built to different ends and for different purposes. You are trying to compare the Betelgeuse at it's best to the Butcher or GodSaw when those weapons are in a situation where they are going to underperform which is an entirely disingenuous way to argue.
Both the GODSAW and the Betelgeuse, and even probably the Butcher should be nerfed such that they remain sub-par versions of the starters like the other directive guns are.
The GodSaw and the Betelgeuse both took something irrelevant and gave boosts that greatly improve the weapon in the common circumstances you'd find the weapon. The Butcher took something useful and gave nothing of note in return. Give the Butcher the front grip back and slap on a compensator. You further erode CQB utility, sure, but you at least double down on something the Carv is well suited for - mid range combat.
If you want fairness, yeah, the Butcher needs a buff or the GodSaw and Betelgeuse need to be nerfed but in the end the weapons will never be "balanced" unless they are redesigned with the same purpose in mind. Start from the Carv-S/LSW/GD22S and do directive silliness to those and you'll absolutley end up with guns that are broadly similar.