that is not enough for me to hang a belief on
The terms used for angel in scripture mean messenger. So it is a relatively unimportant point if Christ carried the title of chief angel in scriptures or not. Christ is the word, thus he was the chief messenger of God. Whether he was Michael or not I see as inconsequential.
What is important is to recognize Christ's position over angels and men. Why? Because recognizing and then accepting it is what exercising faith in Christ means. Some Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe the Bible teaches Christ is Michael as an archangel, in order to teach he is not God over angels and men/women.
The mistake Jehovah's Witnesses make in teaching that, and the illusion of their teaching, is that they equate Christ's position to his Father as if it affects both Christ's and his Father's position over Christians. That's a fallacy. It's like teaching because a wife subjects herself to her own husband then she is not a parent in equal status with her husband over her own children. And it's like claiming that her children must not recognize her as an equal parent. That's what JWs teach about Christ, that although the Bible calls him God (e.g. Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6-which JWs admit) he is not their God, only the Father is.
JWs have changed their Bible, the NWT, to conform to this false idea. At John 1:1 they claim Christ is "a god" or has the quality of being divine without the actual position of God over them. That teaching is based on the idea there is no direct article (the) placed in front of theos when referring to Christ. WT claims without the direct article the word god means a quality and not a position. Yet WT is proven wrong for in the same chapter of John he does not place a direct article in front of theou when John refers to the Father at John 1:12, 13, 14, 16, 18. Check those vss out in an interlinear, since I am writing from memory I might have one or two wrong. Nevertheless, the point about the absence of a direct article preceding theos at John 1:1 holds no water, because of its absence in these other occurrences (in the same chapter) by John.
Furthermore WT has misinterpreted the Greek word most often used for worship, but only when WT applies that Greek word to Christ (do obeisance to, instead of worship). Check that out in an interlinear also, and you will note WT's deception there also. See Hebrews, the Father had all the angels worship Christ. Check out the end of Revelation when John was about to bow down and worship the angel, but was stopped by the angel. Check out Matthew where the Devil asked Christ to bow down and do one act of worship to him. All these scriptures and many more use the same word, translated worship in the NWT, except when that act and word is applied to worshipping Christ. Note also that when Christ was asked to do that before Satan he said, "worship your god and serve him only." And that statement, by Christ, is what defines WT's teaching that Christ is not the god over true Christians as apostasy. Because JWs admit Christ received all authority in heaven and on earth, which signifies he has the right to rule over all others, and others have an obligation before God to recognize this right of his. That means all obedient to God must, by the word of God, recognize Christ as their God and serve him. Just as Christ said, "worship your god and serve him only." You could not serve Christ in the sense scriptures claim as your absolute ruler, unless as Christ said in that statement you "worship your god" as Christ.
Whether or not Christ was created by the Father, whether he is inferior to the Father in any way, or whether or not the scriptures ever spoke of him as the chief messenger of God with a name Michael is not nearly as important as accepting Christ as your God alongside the Father.