358 Anti-Climb Fence vs 868 Double Wire Fence: Mesh, Posts, Security and RFQ Differences

A risk-based comparison that separates mesh geometry from verified whole-system security performance

Article copy

358 and 868 are different welded-mesh constructions. A 358 system is selected around a tight rectangular opening intended to limit usable hand and foot access. An 868 panel uses two nominal 8 mm horizontal wires around one nominal 6 mm vertical wire, commonly with a larger rectangular mesh. These features influence climbing and tool access, visibility, rigidity, weight and fixing design, but they do not by themselves assign a security rating to the installed perimeter.

MaiFa maintains separate 358 Anti-Climb Fence and Double Wire Fence product families. Its current 868/656 article identifies the 8/6/8 arrangement and a listed 50 x 200 mm mesh direction. MaiFa's current 358 product content includes more than one dimensional direction, so the RFQ should state the actual mesh and horizontal/vertical wires rather than relying on the 358 label alone.

Decision rule: start with the threat and required evidence. Favor a tightly specified 358 configuration when limiting climbing and tool access is a primary design objective. Consider 868 when a flat twin-wire panel and its rigidity, visibility and project evidence suit the perimeter. Never claim that either is automatically suitable for a risk level without matching assembly evidence.

1. Quick comparison

The table is a procurement map, not a substitute for project design. Every final selection should be repeated in the quotation and approved drawing, with unresolved decisions and excluded evidence clearly marked.

2. Specify mesh and wire before using the product name

The market term 358 is often explained through imperial mesh and wire naming, but a buyer should not purchase from the label alone. State clear mesh opening and orientation, horizontal and vertical wire diameters, whether values are before or after coating, tolerances, welded-intersection requirements, edge treatment and finished panel size. This is especially important when current product pages show variant wire directions.

For 868, write the sequence explicitly as horizontal/vertical/horizontal and keep the mesh, finished panel and coating on the same drawing. The nominal use of larger wires in an 868 panel should not be confused with proof of anti-climb or attack-delay performance.

• Put both offers on one metric dimensional schedule.
• Require production drawings rather than accepting a generic category table.
• Sample mesh and wire measurements under an agreed method.
• Record any deviation from the requested geometry before production.

3. Evaluate climbing, cutting and viewing as different questions

Tighter openings generally restrict toe, finger and tool access compared with a larger mesh. That geometric observation supports a design discussion, but it does not establish a tested attack time. Wire diameter, weld consistency, panel edges, fixings, post spacing, ground gap, top detail and gate clearances can all create weaker interfaces than the panel field.

Visibility should also be assessed separately. Dense mesh may create viewing effects at angles or distances, while larger openings can change sightlines. Camera placement, lighting and the required observation direction should be reviewed using the real layout. Neither privacy nor surveillance quality should be promised from mesh name alone.

• Define the anticipated intrusion or tool scenario.
• Inspect ground, top, corner and gate interfaces for usable openings.
• Coordinate cameras and lighting with the selected mesh and posts.
• Request configuration-specific reports for any security claim used in approval.

4. Compare posts, fixings and gate openings

A security perimeter is a chain of interfaces. The post section and wall, post centres, foundation, panel overlap, clip or cover-bar, bolt head, fastener access and installation method should appear on controlled drawings. If tamper-resistant hardware is required, identify the exact fastener and tool rather than using the general phrase security bolt.

Gates need the same attention. State clear opening, leaf format, infill, frame, gate posts, hinges, latch or lock interface, meeting and ground clearances, stops and any top-detail transition. A high-security panel beside an incompletely specified gate does not create a complete high-security system.

• Price line and gate posts separately.
• Show fixing count and position on the elevation.
• Trial-assemble a representative bay and gate interface.
• Keep access-control equipment scope distinct from supplied metalwork.

5. Match evidence to the project risk level

The buyer or security professional should define the required deterrence, delay, detection and response outcome. Ask for the test standard, rating, report number, tested height, panel, post, fixing, foundation and gate scope when a performance claim is material. A report for a different assembly, or a general company document, should not be treated as proof for the quoted perimeter.

For projects without a formal security rating, still create a documented design basis. Record why the mesh, height, posts, fixings, gates and top or ground treatment were selected, then inspect the delivered configuration against that basis.

• Separate dimensional conformity from security-performance evidence.
• Check report dates, scope, limitations and installation instructions.
• Do not copy a rating from a competitor or unrelated system.
• List buyer-required evidence as a priced quotation deliverable.

7. A defensible selection workflow

• Complete a site and threat assessment with the responsible project team.
• Define mesh, wire, height, visibility, ground gap, top treatment, gates and required evidence.
• Request complete 358 and 868 system drawings on the same layout and delivery basis.
• Review posts, fixings, foundations, gates and detection interfaces.
• Validate every claimed rating against the exact quoted assembly.
• Approve drawings, evidence, inspection and packing before production.

8. What the quotation should include

9. Copy-ready inquiry template

Please quote complete 358 and/or 868 fence systems for [site/location]. The project risk requirement is [describe]; required evidence is [test/report/design basis]. State actual mesh opening and orientation, horizontal and vertical wire diameters and tolerances, panel size, post section/wall/spacing, foundation interface, fixing detail and fasteners, finish, ground/top details and all gates. Identify the exact assembly covered by any performance claim. Include approved drawings, trial assembly, inspection, packing, [Incoterm] to [named place] and all exclusions.

Frequently asked questions

Is 868 fence automatically anti-climb?

No. Evaluate opening geometry, height, interfaces and the evidence required by the project.

Is 358 always more secure than 868?

No universal statement is responsible. Security depends on the threat, complete assembly and verified performance.

Why state 358 wire dimensions separately?

The market label is not enough to control every quoted variant; actual horizontal and vertical wires must appear on the drawing.

Which has better visibility?

Assess the real mesh, distance, angle, lighting and camera arrangement rather than relying on a general label.

Can line posts be used at gates?

Do not assume so. Gate loads and hardware require coordinated gate posts and foundations.

What evidence should a buyer request?

Evidence matching the exact panel, post, fixing, foundation, height and gate configuration used for the required claim.

Request a configuration-based quotation from MaiFa

Send MaiFa the application, location, layout, quantities, selected product direction, gates, special conditions, finish, evidence needs, inspection scope, packing and delivery destination. A useful response should be an itemized system offer tied to controlled drawings, not a panel-only price or an unsupported performance statement.

Browse MaiFa 358 Anti-Climb Fence. Read MaiFa's 868 vs 656 specification comparison. Browse MaiFa Double Wire Fence.