I recall they were from Lower Saxony, but it was a long time ago. They were a friend of a friend. I know they were from Germany at least! I'm not really sure what a professional hunter is exactly, but the entire family (mom, dad, and two sons I think) were "professional hunters." They gave me the impression that you had to be in order to hunt in that area. Most of our conversation pertained to the suppressors though. They were not common in the US at that time, so I was really surprised that they owned them. When they found out I had hunted in the US and was interested in guns they were eager to tell me about their equipment and what they hunted (these funny looking, tiny ass deer
).
Just because the Norwegian military doesn't use suppressors wouldn't necessarily preclude them from making us use them. I know the greenies start coming out of the woodwork to try to prevent the US military from training. Even here in the US they have to spend millions of dollars and do all kinds of stupid crap on their own bases. Fort Benning has these endangered owls that wreak havoc.
Then again, it might have been a tactical experiment to see if Marines with suppressors had an advantage over a foreign force without them. It will be interesting to find out more about it and see what the results were. If the military does adopt widespread suppressor use it could lower the price of whatever cans they adopt. Then again, it could make them look more "tactical" and less sporting if they become associated with the military. Or maybe they'll do a study on hearing loss that will finally convince the liberals that they're a good thing.
ETA: Doesn't unsuppressed rifle fire at the crack of dawn drive people nuts during hunting season?