Which would be a better scope for my Stevens.22-250?

I'm deciding between a few different scopes and need some help. Using the gun for coyote hunting and target shooting. Also suggestions on which reticle to get would be helpful (realizing this may fluctuate the price). Here are the three scopes I'm deciding between: 1.) Leupold Rifleman 4-12X40Mm Matte Wide Duplex ($280); 2.) Nikon ProStaff 4-12 x 40 Black Matte Riflescope (BDC) ($220); or 3.) the Nikon Monarch Riflescope 4-16x42SF Matte Mildot ($415)

Either the BDC or mil dot would be my choices.
how much zoom you need is one factor, another is hold over to compensate for wind or range on the go. Unless you're the kind that changes the reticle for each shot…

my 2 cents, 16X is the minimum for 100 yard target shooting, you'll need more if you want to go longer. 4-10 X is plenty for hunting.
I don't change my reticle settings after I zeroed the scope, I use mil dot reticles to compensate for windage/bullet drop at range.

for serious target shooting and long range shooting I recommend looking into what F-class shooters use and find a scope similar to and what you can afford.

Go with the Leupold. Go for better glass versus gimmicks like mildots. If you know your weapon there's no real world need for midots.

Leupold. Plain old crosshairs- not much more is needed.

And really, you could probably get away with a 3-9x for coyote and targets, and it would cost less. But target shooting with a.22-250? That's a bit expensive. I'd suggest you invest in a.223 Remington for target practice, since that will be much cheaper once this buying craze slows down. You'll spend about half as much on a.223 Rem as you would on.22-250 Rem once prices stabilize.

The Monarch is the best of the bunch you mentioned. The Leupold and Prostaff are pretty lousy glass for the nearly $300 they charge. If $415 is a little rich, consider a Weaver grand slam or Bushnell elite… Both are far better and cheaper than the Leupold and Prostaff.