See JaronK's post after yours. All of his points in it had already been brought up and fully gone over which is why I said you hadn't bothered to read all the posts. I thought you might bother to go back and reread the posts after I said you should. My bad.
Also, it doesn't matter whether an exception is a contradiction (which it is not), what matters is that there is no exception in this case since that table is only for finding weapons randomly (RAI it might be intended as an exception but RAW all it is saying is you can't find them randomly).
I'm not sure you understand what "implies" means. Look it up. In this context, it means that the rules don't say thing one way or the other regarding an exception, but there is a detail that suggests something was intended. But because that's all it is, it has no mechanical weight. It's dependent entirely interpretation and extrapolating beyond the actual written rules.
EDIT: Unless you're saying I'm not allowed to nitpick rules interpretations in a thread dedicated to nitpicking the rules. If you could quote a post before mine that makes essentially the following arguments, then I'll admit I should read more closely:
A. The lack of an entry in the random generation table implies that a designer thought that Spell Storing shouldn't be applicable to ranged weapons.
B. There is a general rule that the properties presented can be applied to weapons.
C. An implication is insufficient to overcome an explicit rule. Therefore Spell Storing can legally be applied to ammunition, and further points are hypothetical. They are not relevant to the argument at hand, and are purely academic.
D. If it were (or if the table explicitly noted that Spell Storing could not be applied), it would be an exception, not a contradiction, and thus there would not be a reason for the text to trump the table.
E. If the Spell Storing entry also had an explicit note that Spell Storing could be applied to ranged weapons, then there would be a conflict between the text and table, and the text would take precedence.
It's possible that I incorrectly parsed a statement or did not completely think through its implications, but I'd appreciate it if you could be less of an ass about it.