I used a Hawke 3-9 x 40 with MAP reticule on my .270 when I first got it & it performed faultlessly. The only reason I changed it was it was an air rifle-dedicated scope & the reticule blotted out too much detail at 100 yards. I've just ordered another Hawke scope (the Endurance 30 in 8 x 56) for it and I'd be pretty comfortable challenging most shooters to find its limits. To my mind there's little to be gained by your average guy in spending hundreds (or thousands) on a scope when perfectly adequate glass can be had for a fraction of the cost
The Nikon scope are very recoil-proof. The Prostaff is pretty sharp glass for the money, plenty sharp and bright enough for deer hunting as far as you should be shooting deer. I recently bought a Prostaff 4-12x40 BDC to move around for load testing, but slim enough to take hunting. The Monarch is better, and still not to expensive, about the price of a Zeiss Conquest.
Also in the Prostaff price range, look at Burris and Swift. Most Swifts are USA made, using Schott BAK7 glass.
I have 5 Burris Fullfield II scopes in 3-9x40 and 2-7x35, and they are very crisp, a finer reticle than the Nikon. They are sitting on a .270, a .30-06, .280 Rem, .375 H&H. On my M700 .270 last fall, I shot 6 targets, from 100 to 600 yards, using the Ballistic Plex reticle, just plinking, one shot each a hit, starting with a bottle cap, then clay pigeons, then a paint can at 600.
I forgot to mention the fact that the Nikon Prostaffs, even the smaller 2-7x, have a large occular bell, so some bolt handles will not clear it without high rings. The Steyr Prohunter is one of these, because the handle does not come straight out and down from the bolt, like a T3 or Mauser M03; it comes out at 90 degrees and then bends down 90 degrees.