I'm having a little problem following this thread because I think we're mixing apples and oranges. When you think about accuracy you're thinking of, at minimum three variables: (1) the gun; (2) the round fired; and (3) the shooter. When those three are thrown together it becomes very hard to predict which will outperform which. For example, a .22 lr round may perform with splendid accuracy in a S & W Model 41 but not so well in a cheap Colt SAA knockoff. Then again, a particular brand of .22 may outperform another brand in the same gun. And, finally, who's doing the shooting makes all the difference in the world. So, trying to predict which caliber is inherently more accurate is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. There are just too many variables at play.
Moreover, there is no reason why any particular caliber should be more accurate. If the bullet mates correctly with the gun through which it fires, it should perform well. Why, for example, should a .22 lr be inherently more accurate than, say, a .40 S & W? I can think of no logical reason why that would be so.
Moreover, there is no reason why any particular caliber should be more accurate. If the bullet mates correctly with the gun through which it fires, it should perform well. Why, for example, should a .22 lr be inherently more accurate than, say, a .40 S & W? I can think of no logical reason why that would be so.