If you read the majority opinion in Heller carefully, it pretty much appears that Mr. Scalia bent over backwards to separate the RKBA from service in a/the militia. He wrote in more than one place that the core right protected by the 2A is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
If the right is individual self-defense, then analysis of what firearms are in common use would have to take into account the firearms chosen by individuals for self-defense. And those are overwhelmingly semi-automatic pistols with "high" capacity feeding devices, and AR-15 pattern rifles with 30-round magazines.
Yes. The majority opinion just doesn't seem to get there. "Dangerous and unusual" remains fairly ambiguous. Any less than what you suggest would/will put a lot of people at risk of becoming overnight felons.
The problem I see with accepting that standard is they cannot ever be in common use if they are already illegal. Catch 22. No accommodation for future technological advances, we are legally frozen into current weapon technology. [advancement not possible? ha.]
That would be a huge concession to the people control lobby. I'd rather live with the pitfalls of the "front-line-grunt" standard of "in common use". Full auto rifles are a lot less dangerous than tyranny by bureaucracy.