I think it's about time some Finnish person here jumps in. I'll stick to the language of the forum so maybe someone else too may find some useful tips here. This is going to be a mess to type out, as everything is linked to anything, but I'll try to keep this in order. This advice is based on the snow conditions specifically in Finland, in other areas you may choose differently.
Skiing while pulling a pulk versus a rucksack will affect the way you ski, thus affecting ski choice somewhat - though mostly you will notice any difference only on hard and soft snow, not much inbetween. Backpack is way quicker to ski with if you can keep your baseweight down - it allows you better kick and glide. While pulling a pulk, well, the pulk will also be pulling you back, though you can do even longer outings unsupported. With a pulk, the small differences in ski designs are almost obsolete on all but very hard snow. So you will be choosing a ski category you want, and then getting whatever you feel more inclined to due to price and other factors and preferences
With a pulk weighing more than 25kg, you will want to get yourself some long climbing skins. Half width is usually good up to 35kg (glides way better than full width), after that you can consider something like 50mm wide skins, also if you are skiing through very technical terrain - or really variable terrain on the small scale in soft snow. Anything you find in the southern half of Finland in forested areas. You know, 2m high bump, 2m slide down, and so forth. If you have just over 20kg, you can get away with kicker skins. Choose 100% mohair or mohair-nylon mix. In Finland, pretty much never do you want nylon, it slows you down tons.
With no added traction and relying on scales or integrated skins, you can mostly only travel flat terrain with a pulk. With a backpack you have more freedom. With wax and wooden skis you have a bit easier time with varied terrain, but also have the disadvantages of them (wax is messy, need to have extra weight on you, if tempetures change need to wax again, can only use additional skins on harder grip waxes, etc - while wooden tar base skis will become obsolete when temperatures rise close to 0°C, and wooden skis snap easier - mostly these also are heavier). Choice between skin and scales is a personal preference. Skins are more quiet and can be replaced when they wear out, unlike scales. Integrated skins need to be worn in and glide waxed before you want to slap your longer skins on. In problem temperatures skins do gather and ball snow easier thsn scales, but this can mostly be combated with something like glop stopper. Yup, hot waxing skins is beneficial - prolongs the life of the skin and protects against moisture absorption.
So, you are probably familiar with the few categories of skis mostly used in Finland:
Tunturisukset (fjällskidor, fjellskis, nordic touring skis whatever the international community refers them as),
- includes all but downhill oriented bcx skis, wide and narrow
Metsäsukset (or eräsukset, very long skis, forest skis, standard width 7cm as you described)
- there are also subcategories for skis made for hunting that are way shorter and way wider, and those skinbase altai hok style "skis" that are marketed for people who do mostly daytrips in very variable terrain. But with these I am referring to the 7cm wide, 210-300cm long skis as they make them nowadays. Vilminko has quit producing their 310cm wooden skis. In the times when the bogs and swamps had not been dug up with ditches to make use of them for forestry, there used to be skis up to even longer than 350cm. Those are not useful nowadays
In Finland the downhill part of backcountry touring unfortunately is not very big, there are not that many who do it - there are very few places to practise the sport, too. So I think, to start with, you want to disregard that unless it is something you would prefer before pulling the pulk. I actually did get a pair of skis, bindings and leather boots (well I am still waiting on the Alpina Pioneer Xplore boots) for this use, too as I'll be spending more time up north the coming winter learning telemark more deeply. There are also Randonnee skis (toppturskidor in Swedish, something similar in Norwegian where these are more common). I think I have only once ever seen that someone skied NTN, too. Regardless, plastic boots are not that common, nor are the standard telemark skis.
Short answer. In Finland, all through the season, you will be fine with long forest skis if you want to get away with just one pair. Definitely would mount with NNN-BC bindings, the age old Kuusamo style bindings and universal bindings do not offer any support, and the boots are very heavy, although super warm (Nokian Naali). You know if you did your military sercive. I just remember all the guys falling down one after another as soon as there was a descent. I prefer the NNN-BC Manual over Magnum for the weight difference, and because technically the Magnum does not offer you any benefits over the Manual.
For the BC-binding you have a good selection of boots to choose from. For overall touring even in the deepest winter, Åsnes Outback 2.0 have been amazing, they keep you warm but are not too warm in the springtime. Other such options could be Lundhags Guide Expedition boots. They also have a detachable felt liner, though I definitely recommend using VBL bags in your ski boots in the coldest times if touring for more than a couple days. Alpina Alaskas are also one of the most durable boots along with the Lundhags', but the last is a bit narrower. Alfa has other boots such as the Guard, too.
I did opt for the integrated gaiter of the Outback, as I anyways would have needed a gaiter and I got really fed up in the past fiddling with detachable gaiters. Seems that I need to make my own gaiters that stay on those Xplore boots. Some pants of course have better features than mine, and you may not need the gaiter due to that. I just like it that I can use those boots in camp as regular long boots, when I untie the laces but close the zipper. It is a pleasure to jump into them and go take a leak in the moonlight. Also eliminates the need for specific camp shoes. With the Outback however there is one fatal design flaw that is easily fixed at home. The front zipper opens from the bottom up too. This is so you can actually change the laces if need be. But the freaking metal pull on the zipper will chafe on the zipper while skiing, and break the front zipper at the low end where your front foot flexes. Just clip that little bit off and replace with a piece of cord. Does not void warranty, believe me I have asked and got a replacement due to this reason for me and my partner. No issues since, though their leather is not the best quality. Alfa Polar also by the way are overkill for most uses.
In many places up north, such as UKK-national park, the most traveled ski routes will follow bottoms of valleys. In such terrain forest skis will be most beneficial, as the snow will be deep and soft until about midway through March when it may start consolidating. In places like Kaldoaivi/Käsivarsi wilderness, where terrain is mostly open plateau, you can get away with a smaller ski earlier into the season because the snow is windpacked. So in February or January, in some places even earlier. But you will be in for a challenge if you get a huge snow dump overnight. This is when a wider ski will come in handy. Before that though, forest skis are better, as snow dumps are way more common very early into winter.
Down south you will be in trouble with anything other than longer forest skis, until you may get some good spring snow conditions. Up north in springtime you definitely want to get a good nordic tourer if you want to go faster and lighter, maybe have some turns even.
A two ski quiver is a very good choice here, so you are right, you maybe do not want to make a compromise for one ski. Mount both skis with NNN-BC or the new Xplore if you wish. This way you can use the same boot for both skis. You can also use the same long skins on both skis - just cut them to the length of the touring ski, it will be fine for both types of skis, still. My favourites are the colltex 38mm 210cm long 70/30 mohair/nylon that Shelby has in stock.
At your weight, I would definitely get a pair of forest skis at least 250cm, but preferrably maybe 270 or 280. However this is where it gets tricky. You will need to know, where you will be spending most of the time on skis, and when. 250cm long skis are still quite agile with the BC binding and a good supportive boot, heck I can even telemark on them in soft snow. This is an advantage in heavily forested areas down south, but 250 compared to 280 sinks quite a bit more, though especially Karhu/Yoko 250cm skis are way lighter than others in this length. But the longer you go, the harder it gets to steer, and skis get heavier. May not be an issue with good route selection, and probably the added flotation will still make for more efficient skiing.
Now I must admit I do not know when it will get too hard with the added length. I have heard reports from people having trouble with the 300cm Järvinen skis while snowplowing even. Those are something you only want to get for skiing on bogs or up north in open tundra and the old forests. I believe Peltonen Metsä 270 would still be somewhat agile, same as Järvinen Lapponia 280. I will have these to try next winter to give a report. Got myself a pair of 300cm skis too just to try them out and to figure this ski category out. Many vouch for the very sensitive tip Järvinen makes, which makes for easier skiing as the tip always floats and does not dig below the surface. Personally I have only skied 250cm Karhu Erä 70 and shorter this far since I mostly have traveled in more demanding terrains in North Karelia. But I want to figure this out. I am sure that 280s can't go wrong, based on discussions I've had with plenty of ski owners. I have the 280 to try out, too. Also a pair of 260 wooden skis. Eero Saukko skied through all of winter with 260cm Lapponias (author of Vuoden Vaellus) and was seemingly fine.
Just make sure to mount the binding using 455 rule, so 45,5% of the actual length of the ski, measured from tail to tip, is where you would want to have the midfoot (halfway of the outsole measurement) of your ski boot. This makes it so your balance point is at the middle of the length of the ski, and you will float maximally. If you mount with the regular style you would use with nordic tourers, the front screws at balance point of the ski, you would be taking a step with each kick - and then you kinda are climbing up stairs when skiing, since the tail of the ski sinks in with each step. You also have less ski in front of you - which makes steering a bit easier sometimes, though herringboning up can be a pain, especially the longer the ski. Try to make wide curves around obstacles and ascents.
For the touring ski, you would need to make a choice - do you want more certainty of flotation, maybe some turns, but slower overall skiing with wider skis like Ingstad, or do you want to maximize your speed on spring snow with something like Mountain Race or Gamme. Then there is the basic midway category of Madshus Bc 55, fischer e99 (or nowadays transnordic 66) and Åsnes Amundsen, Sverdrup, etc.
Just pick one of those three categories, and seek for a ski of your liking. Most important is, that you have an optional kicker skin you can add on the base, such that Åsnes and Fischer have. These are something you most of the time want to have on all the time while skiing with a pulk. I have managed to pull even 30kg almost straight up a moderate fjell, with my Ousland 190s and 48mm kicker skins. Definitely worth it. Just pick a category, I would go for either the mid category or wider if you want to be better able to have a wider range of conditions where the skis work. Weight is not that important when pulling a pulk, either. And it is not everything you want to have your eyes on - for example, Amundsens will be faster than Ouslands in some conditions because they are stiffer. These small differences within a category really have no meaning with a pulk, though. Only if you are mostly skiing snowmobile tracks and spring snow, should you choose a narrower ski, tbh.
Choose the ski length according to the actual weight on the skis. So your backpack, your clothing, ski boots, everything. I chose my Ousland 190s for pulling a pulk, to gain a bit more traction (am 73kg and a gew kilos of equipment without a backpack), and to easier steer my way down the slopes as I pull my sled with a rope instead of a frame. For use with backpack, 200 or even 210 would have been more efficient as that adds 10-20kg. With the MR48s skis I took the sale offer on the 210 as these skis are a bit less stiff, even though Åsnes tells me to get the 200. Some manufacturers are also aiming these guidances towards absolute novices to provide more traction and easier turning with loss of speed and flotation. The extra length probably wont bother me on the downhills too much as I am used to longer skis, and anyways on distance oriented trips I am anyways mainly just trying to survive descents. Length gives a bit more stability in speed too, when you are past the point when you cannot brake anymore. If you want an easier ski to turn and to learn to telemark, then you want to opt for a bit shorter (also maybe wider) ski to begin with. I just got myself a pair of Åsnes Falketind 62X in 188 to learn to telemark on a bit fatter skis, but skis that I could still use for offtrail touring when the weather is unstable and terrain varied up north. Main use however is the downhill part, though I do have intentions to go touring in a bit more demanding and steeper terrain on them, too.
About ski poles - I like the Swix Mountain Expedition poles, very sturdy yet light, and have an okay system for adjusting the length, though not as easy as a flick lock. Main reason I got these was thst they go up to 164cm so I can pitch my large pyramid shelter. I'm 182cm tall and my ski poles would be 150-155cm while skiing, typically at around 152. The leather basket helps on steep terrain as it bends very easily. However due to long term durability I am thikimg of switching to their composite baskets, though I think they may not be as flexible. If they are more durable and light, and work okay, I may stick to them. Do not worry though, I did a 1300km ski tour last winter and the baskets probably would hold it together for another one. For those kinds of trips however I am looking to lose a bit more weight from my poles, to allow for more track skiing like performance. Be it with loss of adjustability and a bit of security. Those Expedition poles take a hell of a lot of force to break, I managed to crash on them multiple times yet they are just fine. With poles tou definitely want to aim at ~200-270 grams per pole, anything heavier will be noticeably harder to work with. Åsnes poles you mentioned are great, but their baskets have had some serious durability issues. Wonder if that has been fixed.
That's my two cents, and how I nowadays guide people to choose a ski to start with over here. NNN-BC binding is not going anywhere, it is affordable and has a better selection of boots, tried and tested. No need to yet put your money on Xplore. I just did, because I do A LOT of winter travel and kinda wanted to see what it is all about, also pushing my distance oriented skis as light as reasonably possible. Caught a bunch of the bindings on end of season sale very affordably.
Varuste.net has good sales sometimes, but for anything else, Welhonpesä and Bear & Water are smaller businessess that can get you pretty much anything you want, that is not available anywhere else. B&W sells Crispi Stetind boots for a very good price too, for example. Outdoorexperten (Swedish web store) has some very good sales very often for basic nordic touring skis from Madshus, also on some boots. It is also worth checking Sport Conrad in Germany.
Jouni Laaksonen will be releasing a new guidebook to winter hiking later this year, actually in a month (in Finnish, Talviretkeilijän opas), which probably has some more insights. After all he has probably tested more different types of forest skis throughout his career than anyone else.
I do not want to pretend to be some know-it-all master of skis, but have hopefully given some insights to what I have found out over the years, and which parts may be applied to your needs. Definitely get those forest skis first, if you plan on starting the season early. Then get the wider nordic tourers, and ski until you realize a third pair of skis would be better
