Brief but good article helping you pick.
Of course, my solution is even better. Pick as many of both as you can.
From http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinTheOp.htm#Tula
"Why is Tula Preferred Over Izhevsk?
A common question, especially among newer Mosin Nagant collectors, is why Tula rifles seem to be preferred, and even command a premium price, over Izhevsk rifles. With any collectible, whether a firearm or not, scarcity is a driving force of desirability. In recent years the majority of Mosin Nagants imported from the former Soviet Union have been M91/30s, including updated Dragoons, M38s and M44s. Tula M38s and Tula M44s are certainly much scarcer than Izhevsk carbines and the preference is obvious in these cases. With the M91/30s though, the total production at Tula is outnumbered by the 1942 and 1943 Izhevsk production alone. When production numbers for all years are considered, only one in three M91/30s is a Tula. While pre-WWII Tula rifles are actually more common than pre-WWII Izhevsk rifles, this fact is often lost in the sea of WWII Izhevsk rifles on the US collector's market.
Another factor is pure aesthetics. Few will argue that in general Tula had more interesting barrel markings and logos over the years which, combined with frequent changes in style, can make collecting Tula rifles more interesting. Of the two post-1928 marks found on the recently imported rifles the bold Tula star is often seen as more impressive than the relatively small Izhevsk triangle and recalls one of the primary symbols of "the Evil Empire" of the Cold War. Izhevsk is also known for it's rough machining during WWII while Tula maintained a constant high degree of workmanship throughout production. Regardless of outward appearances, Izhevsk rifles are just as well made when it comes to function, accuracy and general suitability for the intended purpose. Mosin Nagants were built to win wars and not to please the eye.
The fact that Tula is easier to spell and pronounce is often mentioned among collectors, but the validity of this reasoning is questionable. The Tula association with Tsar Peter the Great is another factor and even the Bolsheviks acknowledged Tula as the "premier" or "foremost" arsenal as evident by the wording of the barrel marks during the 1920s. Some regard any premiums for Tula rifles as simply a marketing ploy by distributors and dealers to increase profits. However, in the case of M38s and M44s this is justified due to the low production numbers.
The apparent general preference for Tula is likely a combination of these reasons and it is ultimately up to the individual collector to decide for themselves whether to focus on Tula rifles or not. There are almost as many reasons why Izhevsk should be preferred as the opposite and the debate will likely continue as long as Mosin Nagants are collected."
Of course, my solution is even better. Pick as many of both as you can.
From http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinTheOp.htm#Tula
"Why is Tula Preferred Over Izhevsk?
A common question, especially among newer Mosin Nagant collectors, is why Tula rifles seem to be preferred, and even command a premium price, over Izhevsk rifles. With any collectible, whether a firearm or not, scarcity is a driving force of desirability. In recent years the majority of Mosin Nagants imported from the former Soviet Union have been M91/30s, including updated Dragoons, M38s and M44s. Tula M38s and Tula M44s are certainly much scarcer than Izhevsk carbines and the preference is obvious in these cases. With the M91/30s though, the total production at Tula is outnumbered by the 1942 and 1943 Izhevsk production alone. When production numbers for all years are considered, only one in three M91/30s is a Tula. While pre-WWII Tula rifles are actually more common than pre-WWII Izhevsk rifles, this fact is often lost in the sea of WWII Izhevsk rifles on the US collector's market.
Another factor is pure aesthetics. Few will argue that in general Tula had more interesting barrel markings and logos over the years which, combined with frequent changes in style, can make collecting Tula rifles more interesting. Of the two post-1928 marks found on the recently imported rifles the bold Tula star is often seen as more impressive than the relatively small Izhevsk triangle and recalls one of the primary symbols of "the Evil Empire" of the Cold War. Izhevsk is also known for it's rough machining during WWII while Tula maintained a constant high degree of workmanship throughout production. Regardless of outward appearances, Izhevsk rifles are just as well made when it comes to function, accuracy and general suitability for the intended purpose. Mosin Nagants were built to win wars and not to please the eye.
The fact that Tula is easier to spell and pronounce is often mentioned among collectors, but the validity of this reasoning is questionable. The Tula association with Tsar Peter the Great is another factor and even the Bolsheviks acknowledged Tula as the "premier" or "foremost" arsenal as evident by the wording of the barrel marks during the 1920s. Some regard any premiums for Tula rifles as simply a marketing ploy by distributors and dealers to increase profits. However, in the case of M38s and M44s this is justified due to the low production numbers.
The apparent general preference for Tula is likely a combination of these reasons and it is ultimately up to the individual collector to decide for themselves whether to focus on Tula rifles or not. There are almost as many reasons why Izhevsk should be preferred as the opposite and the debate will likely continue as long as Mosin Nagants are collected."