RE: Nikon Monarch vs Buckmaster
Abolt, first ALL Nikon scopes have exactly the same number of lenses in them, 10! Be it a 4x40 ProStaff or a 5.5x15x50 Monarch Gold. The difference is in the lense coating and the seals used. The Buckmasters series is rated at 92-93% light transmission. The Monarch is rated at 95% (the theoretical max %age available to be had, the other 5% is claimed to be loss through refraction, bending and moving through the scope itself). I have both Monarch and Buckmasters scopes, they are great scopes ESPECIALLY for the price. IMHO the 3x9x40 BM is THE greatest scope on the market for under $200.
From my personal experience of being in and working around the sportings goods industry, at the retail level, in 15+ years of working for a Nikon dealer we had the most returns with ProStaffs, probably between 6-12 annually. We would get about half a dozen returns a year with BuckMasters and in that time period (15+ years) I can't recall over half a dozen returns of Monarch products. That's from a store selling over 100 pieces of Nikon each season. So you can see the return/problem rate on the Monarch series was CONSIDERABLY better than the other two.
That extra 2% doesn't sound like much, and really it probably isn't when you consider that the Buckmasters will get you past legal shooting time in most conditions. I just like the Monarch for the extra toughness and typically small price difference ($100-$150 between most equal Monarchs vs Buckmasters). As for your question about the 3x9x50 BM, I think a bell that large on a 9x scope is a waste of money and requires you to go too taller rings. It has been my experience that the only scopes that merit a 50mm bell are those of 12x or larger power. They need the extra pupil size for lowlight performance. A 9x 40mm scope will yield a 5mm pupil. In lowlight conditions your own eyes pupils won't be that large!
I would recommend the Monarch or the 3x9x40 BM for your purposes,
RA