Kalashnikov USA and Palmetto State Armory to Clash Over AK-103 Clones

Kalashnikov USA and Palmetto State Armory to Clash Over AK-103 Clones

If I were Kalashnikov USA, I would be pretty upset about now. Kalashnikov USA recently announced the introduction of a Ak-103 clone under the Kalashnikov banner… and then comes Palmetto State Armory to suprise no one with a budget friendly Ak-103 clone ONE DAY LATER. The difference here is that Palmetto’s version comes in four configurations starting at $599 MSRP  for a basic PSA AK to a $899 Premium version with a folding triangle stock, FN Cold hammer forged barrel, etc… That’s going to smart when the Kalashnikov USA’s AK-103 starts at MSRP $1089.

PSA AK 103

Which will be a better product? That’s a tough call, but PSA has so much manufacturing momentum I think it would be hard for any other company to out-produce or out-price them… even with premium vs premium models. Both setups look pretty damn good, but until they are in shooters hands it will be hard to say which will give you more for your hard-earned dollar. When there is competition, the consumer wins. Read more about the PSA 103 at Palmetto State Armory Here. Read more about the Kalashnikov USA at Military Times here.

FN Hammer Forged Barrel AK

Written by lothaen


  1. DAN III · January 17, 2020

    I have been a fan and customer of Palmetto State Armory for several years now. Their products are not the perfection of LWRCi or Daniel Defense weaponry. However, they’re not the high prices of those quality firearms, but they are of a quality to satisfy the bulk of shooters. Their customer service is very good and friendly….actually human, so to speak. Furthermore, PSA has a presence on numerous Internet sites. In particular’s Industry forum. Where is Kalashnikov USA ?

    Four to five years ago when Kalashnikov USA was announced they offered not a single product to the firearms consumer. Shooters and fans of the Soviet/Eastern Bloc’s Automat Kalashnikov 47 and 74 were asking where the products were. PSA answered the call. Kalashnikov USA was nowhere to be found.

    Now, after Palmetto State Armory has been building their customer base and our loyalty Kalashnikov USA FINALLY provides the product the Kalashnikov name represents. One cannot live on promises alone or name recognition. In fact most shooters have no clue as to the name of the weapon and it’s inventor. They all refer to the Automat Kalashnikov as “AK”. Not Kalashnikov ! So much for name recognition to help market Kalashnikov USA’s finally introduced “AK”. Kalashnikov USA is a day late and a dollar short with their AK47 offering.

    Although Kalashnikov USA may have a stupendous product, their marketing and tardy introduction of the famous AK47 is/was abysmal. I have little sympathy for them.

    Palmetto State Armory will be introducing their 5.45×39 pattern Kalashnikov soon. Hornady recently announced brass and bullet components for 5.45×39 caliber firearms. Kalashnikov USA better get off their asses. Otherwise, they’ll be gone before they even get started.

    Competition is good. In that regard KUSA’s AK47 introduction is welcomed. Problem for them is Palmetto State Armory is well established. Their products are good and priced even better. Kalashnikov USA has a long road to hoe competing with Palmetto State Armory. I wish Kalashnikov USA good luck. They will need it.

    It is all about competition. May the best man or manufacturer in this case, WIN !

    • Robert Cox · January 19, 2020

      Very well said. I also waited for Kalashnikov Concern to produce, but found other avenues, such as PSA. Hopefully both products are great, and competition drives the market.

  2. Mark H · January 17, 2020

    Good post above, although “I” own NEITHER…so can’t say one way or another. But IF ‘Free Market’ principles apply, PSA can gloat. Btw, it’s “ROW to hoe…”

    • DAN III · January 18, 2020

      Mark H,

      Hey, thanks for correcting my use of “hoe” instead of “row”. I had a brain cramp when I wrote that. Was too lazy to search for the proper word.

      Thanks again for your correction/clarification.

Leave a Reply to Mark H Cancel reply