Well, as an example only now. I originally brought it up because the way Onepunch worded his first post, I thought he was reffering to the energy in the round being to weak to kill at long range.1 shot per 3 or 4 seconds from a rifle compared to 80 shots per second + from a fighter, the point is that "precision" isn't really going to matter. Even if the fighter is slighty less stable, and I'm not so sure that it is, I fly a 172 in the roughest air in North America, and watching my wing flex around the bit that it does, I don't think that firing mounted guns from it would be all that big a deal at these ranges, particularly with the fire rate involved.
Sure, the % chance of killing a target is going to be far less, but if the guns were harmonized at 650, hitting wouldn't be too hard. I've done a bit of formation stuff, and coming up behind another aircraft at a range of 600, you can hold a spot on the windshield fairly steadily on it. With such a huge volume of fire, I really don't see how you could have a clean miss. Sure many rounds wouldn't strike, but a fair number would.