Ok, it is quite obvious why repeating rifles replaced the single shot rifles of old, but why did so few armies adopt and develop the lever action?  I believe it was the Hungarian army who defeated the Russians with winchesters and it spurred the firearms industry to develop repeaters, but the end result was a crop of bolt actions.  Why didn't lever actions see much combat? Where all the makers of levers US? Whats the big benefit to bolt guns?

Jk

I also find it easier to stay on target with a bolt than a lever.

also rember it also took em along time to adopt semi autos. they thought it was a waste of ammo.
probly the same reason with the levers

That battle was the battle of Plevna in 1877 during the Russki-Turkish war.

The Russkies and Romanians advanced on the outnumbered Turkish trenches above Constantinople , who began to come under fire at greater than 2000 yards from the Turks .45 single shot Peabody-Martini's.  At 200 yards they put these rifles down and picked up .44  Winchester lever action rifles that were taken from (disbanded?) cavalry units and mowed down the Russkies.

A lot of American Iron in this war - I recall the Turks used alot of civil war Springfields that were bought from the Germans, who captured them from the Frogs in 1870, who bought them from the US.  The Russkies used Colt Berdan rifles and others.

The Russians did later buy Winchester lever actions in 7.62 rimmed, who used them in WW1, their civil war, and against the Germans again in ww2!

Interesting war from the history buff's standpoint with all the surplus iron, geopolitics of Europe, Ottoman finances and politics, etc.

Anyways, I understand that lever actions did not see much military use due to the poor camming forces, open and closed, inherent in lever actions.  Military ammo used may be dirty or muddy, extraction problems due to sustained firing, etc.    

Also you have to disturb your trigger grip to load the next round, which causes delays in follow up shots as for as reaquiring your sight picture and the speed at which you can do it. Bolt guns offered similar high capacity but were much faster in reaquiring your sight picture for the next shot, you don't have to take your fingure off/away from the trigger and you don't disturb your grip like on the levers.

It's also hard to work a lever action from a prone position or when firing over a parapet.

To add to what pogo said, the Germans captured enough Winchester '95s from the Russians to give them there own designation. So the Germans used them as well, although I suspect that they were used by some of the more questionable non-German SS units.

Ammo wasters. Ha!  I read one contemporary account that speculated and moaned that "hundreds of rounds" of 30-40 Krag ammo were needlessly dropped and lost in the charge up San Juan Hill.  I guess that the peacetime quartermaster mentality dies pretty hard when the bullets start to fly.

If I were to guess, the Germans gave every rifle in existance a proper Gewehr designation.  I once saw one of those Kimber Swedish Mausers with German Army "G" markings (like G-33/40 or such) on the left hand receiver rail. I wonder what the story was on that one.  Damned butchers, Kimber.

Yep, I think the problem with firing prone, the tube magazine/flat pointed bullet issue, and the fact that a bolt rifle is more rugged/reliable in adverse condidtions was the idea.
You can beat down a door with a Mauser or Enfield.