I am opposed to ALL that crap. One thing I have long admired about the USMC was their sincere commitment to teaching grunts to hit what they shoot at,while the US Army went to "spray and pray" without even pretending they placed any importance on accuracy.
AND....,speaking as someone who has had to suffer through teaching people unfamiliar at all with weapons how to SAFELY carry and shoot automatic weapons,I can tell you it is a freaking nightmare. There is something about a "full auto/machine gun fire" switch on a rifle that seems to lower the IQ of a typical soldier who has never been in combat by at least 50 percent. One thing you can bet everything you own on is that there WILL be a full-auto accidental discharge in each class,either from some dweeb thinking he was the re-incarnation of Rambo carrying his rifle with the fire selector on full-auto,or from someone THINKING he had the switch set at semi-auto,and losing control when he pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine.
The USMC was acting wisely by limiting full-auto weapons to one man per squad,and then empathizing accurate single fire shots by the rest of the squad. Don't forget,the USMC is designed to be purely an assault force,and the first waves hitting the battlefield are carrying all the ammo they have with them,and hoping they can get a ammo re-supply before they shoot it all up.
I am also STRONGLY opposed to this new H&K "Wonder rifle". I know the US Miliary is and has been looking for a round better suited for the wide open distance missions they are running now. The old 5.56 M-16 round was fine for jungle warfare where you were within 50 feet of the enemy almost all the time,but is lacking when it comes to fighting wind and hitting hard at long distances common to today's firefights. They need a "new" battle rifle because they desperately need a new rifle round that will shoot heavier bullets that will be lethal out to much longer distances and resist wind-buffeting that creates inaccuracy while doing so.
I have the solution to that problem too,and it does NOT cost the taxpayer and the military budget hundreds of millions dollars to design a new rifle or adapt a current design to fire a new military rifle round. All they have to do is make a phone call and place a order.
Can you say "FN-FAL in 7x57 mm"? The rifle has been around since the 1950's,and was the main battle rifle for the majority of the world's armies. The 7x57 mm rifle round has been a military rifle round for main battle rifles since the late 1800's. The Germans,for one,used it in the chambers of their battle rifles and machine guns in both WW-1 and WW-2,with some overlap of the 8x57 mm round.
As for the FN-FAL itself,you can buy it from FN in either semi-auto or full-auto mode right out of their catalogue,and it's as reliable as any semi-auto rifle that has ever been issued to any army. They even have an adjustable gas system so you can custom-tune it's action to whatever round you happen to be firing through it. No,the typical riflelman should NOT be allowed or encouraged to do this,but it's not rocket science,and there is no reason the automatic weapons guy from each squad can't be taught the how's and why's and be able to adjust all the rifles in his squad if they happen to end up with a issue of ammo hotter,milder,or with a lighter or heavier bullet. Or you can just use it "as issued" and it will function well with all of them,but have noticeably more recoil shooting the hotter 7x57 loads with heavier bullets.
Why re-invent the wheel and spend up to billions doing it before the dust settles when you can pick up the phone and just call FN and order them by the shipload?
