During the US civil war, the most common rifles were Minié-type muzzle loaders which have a range of 300-400 meters and a rate of fire of around 3 shots per minute.
During the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the Dreyse and Chassepot rifles were the main rifles used with a rate of fire of 10-15 shots per minute.
The Martini-Henry used by the British in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879 had a similar rate of fire.
Now, we can see the improvement in the rate of fire. The increased range didn’t matter very much because most engagements occur within 300-400 meters. The rate of fire matters very much, though.
What surprised me was that repeating rifles with higher ammo capacity and rate of fire existed in the 1850s and 1860s. Yet all militaries used slower-firing main rifles up to the 1930s for the US and the 1940s/50s for other countries. I understand why they were only used on a small scale during the US Civil war; They were recently invented and large scale production can take some time to come online. Why did it take nearly a century to get rifles with similar capacity and rate of fire adopted as the main rifle?
Were repeating rifles that much more costly, unreliable, less accurate and non-durable than the 1861 Springfield, the Chassepot, the Dreyse and the Martini-Henry? Were there other factors?