Not quite fair to compare a rifle designed for COMBAT against one designed for sport hunting. Very much Apples vs. Oranges.
What was the gun that won the west? Oh yea, the lever gun. It WAS designed for combat.
While there have been lever guns used by some nations (Russia and Turkey used some Winchesters) and SOME lever guns were designed with the intent of selling them to the military (though the US never bought any significant quantity), the Marlin was not designed as a combat arm.
After Marlin's submission of a lever action .45-70 was rejected by the Army, Marlin turned their focus to civilian sporting arms, and all their subsequent lever guns, to this day, (including the Glenfield under discussion here) were designed as hunting rifles, not military combat arms.
Winchester made versions of their lever guns intended for military use, but our military was never interested, with one exception. During WW I, the Army purchased a number of Winchester lever guns, and used them to guard PNW fir forests against "communist sabotage".
Prior to WW I, from the 1870s on the lever gun was inferior to military single shots and bolt actions in all ways except firepower. They were complicated, EXPENSIVE, and fragile, compared to service rifles. Plus very few designs fired the military caliber, and about none (with certain Winchester variants being the rare exception) were made to use a bayonet.
The two piece stock of the typical lever gun was a serious drawback to being a combat weapon, because, though few people think of it today, in those days the soldier's rifle was meant to be used in hand to hand combat. And survive being used that way.
Also, military brass did not put a high priority on individual soldiers firepower until after the WW I lessons sank in, and even then most of the major WWII combatants still fielded a 5 shot bolt action as their standard infantry rifle.
the lever gun may have "won the west" but it didn't do in the hands of the US Army.