Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hardware cloth of 12 mm (half-inch) aperture is sold and fitted as rodent proofing, including against mice. This study evaluates that claim with a logistic passage model anchored on stated points relating aperture to the probability that an animal passes: a mouse passes 6 mm with probability 0.05, 9 mm with 0.50 and 12 mm with 0.95; a young rat passes 12 mm with 0.05 and 25 mm with 0.95. On those anchors, 12 mm mesh admits a mouse with probability 0.95 — it is, for mice, nearly no barrier at all. Passage probability falls below 1 percent only at 4 mm, and is 0.05 at 6 mm, which supports the originated specification: apertures of at most 6 mm for general rodent proofing, and about 4 to 5 mm where mice alone are the target and a strict bound is wanted. For a median house with 14 m of vulnerable gap, fitting 6 mm mesh costs USD 126 against USD 84 for 12 mm — a difference of USD 42 for the difference between a barrier and a sieve. Expanding foam alone, with a stated gnaw-through probability of 0.65 within a year, is not a barrier material at any thickness. This study is simulated, not measured. SIMULATED, NOT MEASURED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: