Since this is a cast bullet site I'm responding in that context.
My take on it is that those cartridges, and particularly chambers, which by design specifications (SAAMI) give the dimensions and tolerances which benefit cast bullets the most, will be "inherently" more "accurate".
I spend a lot of time trying to invent ways to optimize a non-optimal cartridge to work better with cast bullets. Take for example rifle chambered in 7.62x51 NATO: Huge throat, extremely large chamber clearance, and loaded clearance approaching five thousandths all the way around the neck. Also, hard brass which needs to be prepared carefully to keep the neck on center and the neck tension uniform. It's doable, but difficult. Another buggar is the Swedish Mauser...as in the military rifles. The challenge is excessive neck clearance, extremely long throat, and very, very wide lands which displace a ton of metal. The .45 Colt is perpetually plagued by the old "do we make it .454" or .452"?" dilemma. The .44 Magnum doesn't have that problem, unless you have a lousy gun.
If you want to get really deep into this, take the cartridge examples everyone raves about and examine the drawings, the popular guns chambered for them, and the historically popular bullet moulds, and note trends between them. Sometimes there's just a golden combination, sometimes there is no combination that ever seems to work out.