How Hard Can a Shark Bite? Scientists Compare Species

When a team of scientists coaxed a shortfin mako into biting a custom-built “bite meter” in New Zealand waters in 2020, the reading stunned the field: roughly 3,000 pounds of force about 13,000 newtons, the largest recorded bite measured for shortfin shark to date. The result made headlines and raised a question in the public imagination: which shark packs the most powerful bite? But among biomechanists and field researchers, the mako result became, if anything, the start of a more careful conversation about what “strongest bite” really means.

Image shows an aerial view of the unsuspecting surfer being trailed by a submerged shark.

Bite force determines what prey an animal can capture, process and swallow, it is therefore central to understanding predator ecology and functional morphology. Scientists use at least three very different ways to estimate bite force in sharks (1) in-water force transducers used opportunistically on single animals, (2) mechanical and morphometric lever-models that compute theoretical maxima from jaw geometry and muscle size, and (3) three-dimensional finite-element models that simulate jaw stresses on scanned skeletons. It should be noted that, These approaches rarely return identical numbers, and each illuminates a different question about feeding ecology and jaw mechanics.

Comparative table for Different Shark Species

To understand the capabilities of different shark species its important to understand their physical characterstics. Numbers below given in the table presents mix modeled and measured values; they may not be strictly comparable but show orders of magnitude.

Great white ( Carcharodon carcharias)

~18,200 N (4100 lb)

~50 mm (2 inch)

~2270 kg (5000 lb)

~6 m (19.7 feet)

Shortfin mako ( Isurus oxyrinchus)

~13,000 N (3000 lb)

~40 mm (1.6 inch)

~517 kg (1250 lb)

~4.4 m (14.4 feet)

Bull shark ( Carcharhinus leucas)

~5914 N (1330 lb)

~35 mm (1.4 inch)

~316 kg (700 lb)

~3.5 m (11.5 feet)

Tiger shark ( Galeocerdo cuvier )

~4450 N (1000 lb)

~30 mm (1.2 inch)

~900 kg (1984 lb)

~5.5 m (18.0 feet)

Great hammerhead ( Sphyrna mokarran )

~2,400 N (540 lb)

~20 mm (0.8 inch)

~450 kg (990 lb)

~6.1 m (20 feet)

Sand tiger ( Carcharias taurus )

~540 N (122 lb)

~13 mm (0.5 inch)

~159 kg (350 lb)

~3.2 m (10.5 feet)

Lemon shark ( Negaprion brevirostris )

No data

~13 mm (0.5 inch)

Max published ~184 kg (405 lb)

~3.7 m (12.0 feet)

Methodological variety helps explain why estimates for the great white, the animal most people picture when they imagine an earth-shattering bite tend to be higher when modeled than when directly measured. A widely cited three-dimensional analysis led by researchers at the University of New South Wales estimated that very large great whites could exert forces on the order of tens of kilonewtons (commonly reported as roughly 4,000 pounds, or ~18,000 newtons) at the posterior bite point in modeled scenarios. A number that places the species among the most forceful biters alive. But that value is a modeled maximum, dependent on assumptions about muscle size, jaw material properties and the gape angle used in simulations.

This infographic shows different species of sharks along with their length and bite force.

By contrast, the mako bite reading was an empirical, single event measurement: it captured what one animal actually did when baited and motivated to bite a device. That makes it a powerful datum, but not necessarily representative of species-level maxima or comparable to modeled maxima derived from skeletal scans. “Measured bites are invaluable,” one review of methods notes, “but they are opportunistic and reflect context baiting, stress, and motivation whereas modeled bites are theoretical maxima grounded in anatomy.”

The differences matter biologically. Large lamnids, the family that includes makos and great whites combine rapid jaw closure with muscular architecture that can produce very high absolute forces. This enables them to tackle large, powerful prey such as marine mammals and tunas. Bull sharks, while smaller on average, are often highlighted in comparative studies for their especially high mass-specific bite force relative to body mass. A detailed ontogenetic analysis of bull sharks found posterior bite estimates rising into the low thousands of newtons as individuals grow, underscoring how feeding ecology and jaw leverage change as sharks mature.

What scientists stress to journalistsis that bite force is only one dimension of feeding performance. Tooth shape and arrangement also determine how force is delivered. Slicing teeth distribute force along a serrated edge, while crushing teeth concentrate force on a small area. Also the lateral head movements add complex loads that single-axis bite meters don’t capture. Finite-element models offer a way to explore those dynamics, but they depend on accurate input data for muscle cross-sectional area and the mechanical properties of cartilage and connective tissues, which remain imperfectly known for many species.

Recent comparative work published in journals such as Frontiers in Marine Science argues for standardized protocols and notes that bite-force scaling can be informative about ontogenetic niche shifts how juveniles and adults use different prey and habitats.

Scientists also see a role for careful public communication. “Numbers help people get a sense of the mechanics,” says one methods review, “but they should be presented with the caveats: modeled versus measured values, anterior versus posterior bite, and the effect of gape and motivation.” That kind of clarity, scientists say, reduces the temptation to treat a single data point as an absolute measure of danger.

Web Resources on Shark Bites

1. Most Powerful Shark Bite Ever (Newsweek)
2. Mechanics of biting in great white and sandtiger sharks (PubMed)
3. Great white’s mighty bite revealed (Newsroom)
4. Mechanics of biting in great white and sandtiger sharks (ScienceDirect)
5. Scaling of bite force corresponds with ontogenetic niche shifts (Frontiers)