I agree that there is an "Emperor's new Gun" phenomena driving opinions. If someone spends a lot of money on a guy, they don't want to believe that it is entirely possible that they could have gotten a very good gun for a LOT less money.
Funny, I actually see the opposite usually. People trying to justify the purchase of an inferior weapon by claiming it is "just as good as" when it isn't and the reasons are documented and provable. For the record I have owned a number of those cheaper guns. They are not anywhere near as good as.
And Mil-spec means little. It means that the specs live up to the standards of the cheapest bidder. Those of us who are know that mil-spec isn't great. People talk about things like staked gas keys, but I'll tell you, the only gas key I have ever had come loose on me was on an issued M-16.
You are showing here that you have no idea how the process works or what "milspec" even is. Milspec does not mean it was made by the lowest bidder. The standards are set forth in the TDP. these are the absolute minimums must be met for a weapon to be used in the military. It includes specifications, materials, testing, and QC. All of which must be documented and shown.
And as for the one failed gun you have seen being a military gun. Well what do you expect. Those guns are abused night and day. Imagine how much more often they would fail if the manufacturer was not forced to meet minimum standards.
Most rifles will work for most people under most circumstances most of the time. Don't worry too much about brand, particularly for a first rifle.
All depends on your need and situation. If your rifle will ever be used for HD or anything besides shooting dirt then "most of the time" doesn't really cut it.
One of the reasons that ARs have a bad rap for failing is because of the sub par companies out there.