Analysis of the jaw structure of Carnotaurus by Mazzetta and colleagues (1998, 2004, 2009) suggests that the animal was capable of quick bites, but not strong ones.
Quick bites are more important than strong bites when capturing small prey, as shown by studies of modern-day crocodiles.
These researchers also noted a high degree of flexibility (kinesis) within the skull and especially the lower jaw, somewhat similar to modern snakes.
Elasticity of the jaw would have allowed Carnotaurus to swallow small prey items whole.
In addition, the front part of the lower jaw was hinged, and thus able to move up and down.
When pressed downwards, the teeth would have projected forward, allowing Carnotaurus to spike small prey items; when the teeth were curved upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey from escaping.
Mazzetta and colleagues also found that the skull was able to withstand forces that appear when tugging on large prey items.
Carnotaurus may therefore have fed mainly on relatively small prey, but also was able to hunt large dinosaurs.
It could generate a bite force of around 3,341 newtons.

This interpretation was questioned by François Therrien and colleagues (2005), who found that the biting force of Carnotaurus was twice that of the American alligator, which may have the strongest bite of any living tetrapod.
These researchers also noted analogies with modern Komodo dragons: the flexural strength of the lower jaw decreases towards the tip linearly, indicating that the jaws were not suited for high precision catching of small prey but for delivering slashing wounds to weaken big prey.
As a consequence, according to this study, Carnotaurus must have mainly preyed upon large animals, possibly by ambush.

Robert Bakker (1998) found that Carnotaurus mainly fed upon very large prey, especially sauropods.
As he noted, several adaptations of the skull—the short snout, the relatively small teeth and the strong back of the skull (occiput)—had independently evolved in Allosaurus.
These features suggest that the upper jaw was used like a serrated club to inflict wounds; big sauropods would have been weakened by repeated attacks.
Analysis of the jaw structure of Carnotaurus by Mazzetta and colleagues (1998, 2004, 2009) suggests that the animal was capable of quick bites, but not strong ones. Quick bites are more important than strong bites when capturing small prey, as shown by studies of modern-day crocodiles. These researchers also noted a high degree of flexibility (kinesis) within the skull and especially the lower jaw, somewhat similar to modern snakes. Elasticity of the jaw would have allowed Carnotaurus to swallow small prey items whole. In addition, the front part of the lower jaw was hinged, and thus able to move up and down. When pressed downwards, the teeth would have projected forward, allowing Carnotaurus to spike small prey items; when the teeth were curved upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey from escaping. Mazzetta and colleagues also found that the skull was able to withstand forces that appear when tugging on large prey items. Carnotaurus may therefore have fed mainly on relatively small prey, but also was able to hunt large dinosaurs. It could generate a bite force of around 3,341 newtons.
This interpretation was questioned by François Therrien and colleagues (2005), who found that the biting force of Carnotaurus was twice that of the American alligator, which may have the strongest bite of any living tetrapod. These researchers also noted analogies with modern Komodo dragons: the flexural strength of the lower jaw decreases towards the tip linearly, indicating that the jaws were not suited for high precision catching of small prey but for delivering slashing wounds to weaken big prey. As a consequence, according to this study, Carnotaurus must have mainly preyed upon large animals, possibly by ambush.
Robert Bakker (1998) found that Carnotaurus mainly fed upon very large prey, especially sauropods. As he noted, several adaptations of the skull—the short snout, the relatively small teeth and the strong back of the skull (occiput)—had independently evolved in Allosaurus. These features suggest that the upper jaw was used like a serrated club to inflict wounds; big sauropods would have been weakened by repeated attacks.
Carnotaurus