It has been about a month of ownership of my BRK Ghost Carbine, and I think it might be sufficient for me to take the time to share further my observations as well as my impressions of it.
I’ll start by saying that the Ghost has a totally different firing character compared to all the PCPs I’ve handled to date that are equipped with conventional valves. I attribute such difference to its balanced valve system. All others utilize a conventional poppet valve system wherein the typical process of releasing large amounts of high-pressure air starts predominantly with increasing hammer spring tension, and if regulators are equipped, adjusting them too. The balanced valve like the one on the Ghost, however, almost completely does away with the former and instead alters the dynamics of the firing cycle, particularly with regard to the hammer-valve relationship. Opening the valve even when shooting at high power doesn’t require a heavy hammer blow, so much so (or little, rather) that even with the power wheel setting at the very lowest (MIN) the velocity of a 14.3-grain pellet clocks at 835 FPS, at a 60 BAR regulator setting. And, because trigger pull weight correlates with and is dependent upon hammer spring tension rate, having a very low hammer spring tension equates to a light trigger pull weight. That said, because the Ghost’s spring isn’t overly stiff, trigger pull weight can be lessened to the ounces at the lowest power setting. If you don’t think that’s impressive, again, consider that at these settings a 14.3-grain pellet is still able to fly at 835 FPS, as stated above.
The design of the balanced valve on the Ghost permits large amounts of air to be expelled, due in large part to the lack of the extra unregulated air pressure behind the valve seat. Instead, what’s mostly keeping the valve closed is the return spring. It’s why only very little force is required to get it at wide open throttle, if you will. It’s a genius design in that it solves problems like broken valve stems due to repeated heavy hammer impact, valve lock due to high bottle pressures, and heavy cocking and heavy trigger pull weights, which also are compromises to having the ability to shoot at higher power outputs. However, it doesn’t come without drawbacks. One of such is the frustration of having to switch the OEM spring for an even lighter one if the desire is to shoot at velocities lower than 800 FPS for a medium-weight pellet, like in my case. And even when a light spring is installed, lowering the plenum pressure to suit doesn’t really do much, which is another drawback. I’ve set my regulator perhaps a tick mark below the lowest-indicated 50 BAR on the gauge (as that’s the lowest number on it), and even with a light spring that has been shortened (as an additional attempt to lessen tension) by about less than half of an inch of the OEM spring’s length and at the lowest power wheel setting, the average velocity of a 14.3 pellet is 570 FPS, and with almost 800 FPS at the MAX setting on the power wheel! My goal was to get it down to 9 FPE to maximize shot count and for backyard target practice, but 11 FPE is tolerable for now, I guess. I think the main advantage of the balanced valve is its capability of generating high power very easily, especially when outfitted with high-power accoutrements (longer barrel, large-caliber pellets, etc.).
The “tactical” sub-name seems to be proliferating across many manufacturers’ models these days, with some having nothing to do with being so. I think some PCPs labeled as “tactical” don’t quite have the kinds of features that the term would dictate, at least on a basic level. Tactical to me is having modularity and the capability to accessorize or adapt to a given shooting situation. By that personal definition, one example I can give of a PCP not deserving of the tactical description is the Cricket Tactical. There isn’t anything tactical about it except for its looks (and maybe one or two more adjustable nicknacks). But hey, if cosmetics is a qualifying aspect, then I guess I can call my first-generation, “non-tactical labeled” Cricket tactical too.
The Ghost truly is an airgun built on a tactical platform. How so? Let me list the examples. It has: (1) provisions for accessories via the picatinny rail below the buttstock; (2) picatinny rails on both sides forward of the top section of the monobloc chassis to mount accessories; (3) a picatinny rail forward of the trigger guard below the bottle; (4) an extended dovetail rail to accept corresponding mounts; (5) a sliding picatinny scope rail to accept a picatinny-style scope mount if one opts to use such instead of a dovetail-type one: (6) a threaded end on the moderator to allow for an additional sound-suppressing device; (7) an adjustable cheekpiece; (8) an adjustable buttpad; (9) a quick-change barrel system; (10) an externally adjustable regulator; (11) externally adjustable power (via the power wheel); (12) a completely adjustable trigger (for length of pull, first- and second-stage weight, shoe angle and height); (13) the option to change air bottles, which have their own valves, so there’s no need to de-gas them; and (14) a swappable AK pistol grip. If those aren’t enough, just throw in the tactical paint, which is very durable (if that counts), and the short-throw cocking lever, which doesn’t require gorilla-strength effort to cock the Ghost. All these features, in my opinion, should put the Cricket Tactical, and some others, to shame and make it crawl back into its case (if it comes with one) with its tail down. The Cricket Tactical is not “tactic-all,” as in an all-out modular machine, and I think it’s a huge disappointment on the lack of effort on Kalibrgun’s part to go further forward with design—e.g., no desire to improve upon the Cricket platform’s nonintuitive magazine loading system—and just take the shortest route just to call their product tactical. (I’m scrutinizing here, not denigrating.
)
I’ve said it already in an earlier post that the build quality of the Ghost is superb, and I still maintain that assertion. But let me just expound a little bit about the chassis. The monobloc alone is very robust and houses only the critical components. It’s
my conviction that going with the decision to make these components interconnecting pieces instead would have counteracted BRK’s goal of preventing any point-of-impact (POI) shifts. In other words, any part that has a direct impact on the flight of a pellet will obviously be a detriment to accuracy because if it were to exhibit any movement or transfer torque to the barrel or whatever contacts it will consequently cause the barrel to move as well, often in a direction other than that of the part in question. To drive this point home further, let’s consider the barrel mounting system on the first-generation Cricket, which is what I also own. Two sections of the barrel on the Cricket are securely clamped onto its uni-rail. This ensures an extremely rigid junction between the barrel and scope and most importantly a true relationship between them. “True relationship” is the key term here because if accuracy is the goal it’s absolutely critical that the scope and barrel have a unified vision, so to say. So, if the barrel were to move, the scope would move along with it and in the same direction, and they both would maintain the same point of aim regardless of the direction of movement or at wherever they end up settling—a key to maintaining accuracy. And though I’ve given a demerit to the Cricket earlier, I must say that its scope mounting system is definitely a winner, at least on the original model. (See, I’m scrutinizing and being constructive, not denigrating!) The Ghost’s monobloc system functions to do the same, but in its own unique way.
Again, just my thoughts.
The Ghost is as accurate as all my other PCPs, so I’m not going to say too much about accuracy here. Having shot many airguns and dedicating most of the years refining my technique, I consider all the airguns I currently own and owned as accurate as I can be. The Ghost, like all the rest, will one-hole pellets (I don’t shoot slugs and don’t care about them) when the skills are up to the task. I could say that the Ghost is extremely, stupendously, ridiculously, stupidly, or outrageously accurate all day and all I want, but I’d suppose that wouldn’t be what I’ll term the “gospel of the Ghost” to a novice who struggles to attain holy levels of precision at 25 yards. So, moving on.
The Huma regulator on the Ghost performs just as well as the OEM regulator on my Cricket. And just as I did on the Cricket, I removed one Belleville washer and replaced it with a flat washer to compensate for the below-50-BAR reg setting in order to maintain a quick plenum recharge rate after taking a shot to support my backyard blasting adventures.
I opted for the Carbine because quite frankly, long, battleship-turret-length rifles no longer appeal to me. It’s why I hardly ever shoot my Air Arms S410 Extra these days because it’s so damn unwieldy. I’ve bumped its barrel too many times to count, with the last incident causing a dent on the muzzle end of the shroud.
Also, I’ve gotten used to the Cricket’s length. But because the moderator on the Ghost doesn’t quite tame its BOO (excuse the pun) very well, the 0DB moderator is needed when silence is paramount to plinking in my backyard. But to my fancy, at its stock configuration it handles nicely—very compact, and because of that it lends itself well to being more maneuverable than some.
Now for the dislikes, and first up is the cheekpiece. Adjustability is limited to only forward and rearward placement, so it’s short of being fully accommodating to a shooter’s unique preference. With scope height being on the high side out of the box due to the extra elevation the sliding picatinny rail provides, the cheekpiece drops the ball on its duty to compensate for that extra height. It's a head scratcher to me because the lack of height adjustment contradicts the “adjustability” design intention. I mean why purposefully make it an adjustable piece but not give it the ability to be elevated when purposefully (presumably) deciding to add extra scope height by way of a picatinny scope rail? I don’t understand this design decision and it’s quite a disappointment to me. On the upside, a PRS height-adjustable rail is available to mitigate this problem, but I’d have to fork out additional after-purchase (substantial) dollars just to get that half-inch of additional height
.
To echo the lamentations of many shooters, the cost of an extra magazine is ridiculous. The last time I checked, which is very recently, a magazine would put a $110 dent in one’s account. It’s almost criminal to pay for a constituent consisting of just three machined aluminum components and a spring put together and incorporating old-school rotating technology
.
Lastly, I don’t know if other owners have experienced it, but the sharp edges of the bottom of the plenum region of the monobloc just behind and above the grip tend to chafe the skin covering the second knuckle of my thumb. As a remedy, I’ve put a piece of adhesive cloth on that area. It looks like the same region on the Delta Wolf is rounded, so I’m questioning BRK’s/Daystate’s decision not carry that feature over to the Ghost
.
Wrapping up, the Ghost is a fine gun and I like it for what it is and what it offers. Primarily, I wanted a compact PCP that offers the ability to adjust plenum pressure without having to empty its container just to do so, is solidly built, and offers more than just the typical adjustability options that my Cricket and some others provide. The Ghost meets those requirements. But like all others, it is not a perfect PCP, as I’ve indicated above. The perfect PCP to me is the one that I envision in my mind but just don’t have the resources to build, yet. So, an airgun like the Ghost will have to do for now.
Cheers!
