Simple:
There are no weapons only for fighters, as the only thing that a fighter is defined by is it's engine and size. Adding weapons that are only allowed for a specific weight class would contradict the current design of the game and require extra dependencies.
It would also be completely illogical.
Aside, this thread is by far not the only suggestion for ammo based Weaponry.
Furthermore:
So the only way your discussion is actually helpful to the suggestion is if you apply your findings to the original suggestion, which did indeed come from the standpoint of allowing fighters a better short range punch.
This, so far, has not happened.
It is known that Fighters armed with Mesons, if used in sufficient numbers, can rip up even big fleets.
Further good weapons for fighters seem to be small Railguns and reduced sized Lasers, and obviously Missiles which are best if your numbers are limited or the enemy has good close range weaponry, or if RP dictates that sacrifice even of smaller ships is unacceptable.
There has never been a lack of beam weapons for fighters. Even a Particle Beam, to stay outside enemy beam range, or with good enough engine theoretically a carronade, for a huge punch on point black range, would work.
But how does this actually tough the topic?
If a beam weapon on a fighter is good, why not allow for a better one that requires additional logistics?
As I stated before, Plasma Torpedoes weren't needed, but Steve used them to add flavor to the game.
So, does your recent discussion say something for or against Ammo-based beam weapons?
Because, currently, it is a tactical discussion; Sorry if I just don't see the point, but I just don't see the point.
Edit: looks like Backstab already got it back on topic.
PS: I'll appologize for any harsh language I might have used.