“... can the machines used to manufacture .22 rimfire be used to manufacture anything else?”
No.
The machines that draw and form brass into cartridge cases are entirely different, when comparing rimfire to centerfire cartridges.
The machines that make bullets from bulk lead and brass sheet (”gilding metal” - commonest US bullet jacket material - looks like copper but is a specialized brass alloy) are completely different too.
The chemical manufacture of propellant powders, and the chemical (and physical) manufacture of primers, are very specialized processes that do not translate well to production of much else.
And interchange among machines producing various calibers is much more tightly limited than most shooters might guess. There is such a large variety of bullet diameters, and case configurations, that “swapping dies around” cannot do much. There are only four sizes of US primers (excluding shotshells), but substitution in manufacture is nil.
And all manufacture depends on very acute quality control; tools and dies wear out at a high rate and must be checked a very short intervals to assure products are emerging from the end of the line inside acceptable tolerances.
It’s not like reloading.
Ammunition manufacture is so specialized and capital-heavy that throughout World World War II, British ammunition supply depended on a small handful of plants - no dispersal of production could take place, unlike arms production in other areas, notably the STEn submachine gun. The UK government worried constantly that air raids might take out one or more facilities, but they survived.
I suspected that was generally the case.
You left out one more reason: .22 rimfire is “rimfire”, not “center fire” - a fifth primer configuration.