I am of the opinion that the current proliferation of blade coatings is based mainly on the "LCF" (look cool factor) that the general population seems to respond to when buying "tactical" knives. This same phenomenon is also responsible for the atrocity known as the "combo edge" but that's another debate
. Also, after having removed the coatings from a factory blade or two and seeing the finish underneath, I have come to believe that they are actually a production shortcut. It is probably cheaper for a manufacturer to "coat" a blade than to properly satin finish the bare steel. However, coatings do have a place on blades that will be exposed to corrosive enviroments, and some allegedly "penetrate the steel" underneath and will continue to protect despite wear.
Here are the coatings that I have experienced:
Teflon, Black-T, BT2 - Basically the same thing, basically crap. It's too soft and scratches off very easily in my experience. My Nimravus was BT2 coated and even taking it in and out of the sheath made it look like a POS in short order. I Scotchbrited it off and have no regrets. I have passed up good deals on hard to get knives because the only one available was the BT2 version.
Titanium/Chromium Nitride. Better. These coatings are actually harder that the steel of the blade, and should therefore be more durable than the teflon-type coatings above. My CQC-7 (titanium carbonitride) still looks like crap after cutting/opening aluminum cans and other things, and aluminum is certainly softer than steel, so go figure... My Microtech a*tos are CrN coated, but I dont use them so I can't comment on durability there. Sure looks cool though. Nice smooth matte gray finish that won't encourage rust like bead-blasted blades do!
As for the protection factor, I have rarely had corrosion problems with any of my uncoated blades (incl. carbon steel), so for me coatings are an added-cost "solution" to a non-existent problem.
Paul.
[This message has been edited by mr44 (edited 06-27-2001).]