Savage has a good rep for being an accurate out of the box rifle. It also is very user friendly for upgrading and switching barrels... However, I recently purchased a12 fvl (left handed version of what you are talking about) and I'm not very impressed. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no BR shooter, but I can't get mine to shoot better than 1 inch at 100 consistantly with various handloads and most are shooting between 1.5 and 2 inchs at 100. They have a cheap stock, trigger is OK, and the barrel on mine is not good. It takes forever to clean the copper out of it!!! I got a dudd. I've heard and seen many people getting similar rifles to shoot twice as good as mine ( and I'm sad to say, thats about what I expected out of mine).
Last year I purchased a Tikka T3 Lite left hand 300WSM and that rifle impressed the heck out of me. I know that my Tikka will out shoot my savage any day of the week and twice on sunday as long as you keep it cool
. If you don't plan on switching barrels yourself, I will honestly say the Tikka is a bette buy than the savage for about 100 to 150 more. You get a 24 inch barrel instead of the 26 (bummer) but it is always better to smack the target slower than to miss it quicker.
I went with a 22-250 because I've always had a soft spot for that cal and I was already set up to load for it because my friends shot them. The problem with this cal is that it is set up in factory rifles to handle lighter bullets. Most come with a 14 twist (savage 12" = another good point for savage). With the savage you will be able to handle a 55 gr blitzking and the others will only handle the 50 gr boat tail class.
The 223 will be slightly cheaper to load for, but you will have to lead into the wind a little more. The 22-250 has very little advantage over the 223. You can shoot the 69 g smk out fo most 9 twist 223's (if memory serves me well) and that will do well out to 500 +
The 204 seems to have lots of promise, but honestly, I just don't like the little bullets.
It all depends on what you want to shoot at and how far away it will be, how many rounds you want to shoot at a sitting, and what other rifles you are going to have to fill gaps. If I'd do it all over again, I'd get a Tikka varmint in a 223 or a 204, especially since I plan on getting a larger rifle for those over 400 yards.
I have a monarch 5.5-16.5 x 44 and a buckmaster 6-18 x 40. The biggest noticable difference is the size of the crosshair. I can get a much finer aimpoint w/ my Monarch. Monarchs will bring in a little more light (95% v/s @90% for the buck). THat is all I can tell for sure. I think the Monarch is a little tougher, but can't say for sure. I firmly beleive that Nikon buckmaster and Monarch are both a good buy for the money. THe Monarch is very comparable to Leupald VX III in terms of quality of picture and the Buckmaster to the VXII. Don't get me wrong, The VX III is a better scope than the Monarch, but I would buy a Buckmaster before a VXII.
Just want to add that this is all just my opinion, and that I don't have the experience that many on this site do. Hope my advice helps