Not really. If the 1000 yard stock -- or for that matter, the same pattern used in a rimfire -- had a definitive advantage, it would have shown up by now.
If improvements are to come, one place might be if the center of mass in a rifle could be at the center of the bore. For example, anyone who's looked at Varmint Al's modeling has seen that the stock forearm leaves the front bags -- upwards -- before the bullet clears the bore. And that the loading on the rear bag is variable. Not to mention the stress the scope is subject to on firing. Lots going one, there.
But consider a rifle where the center of mass is on the center of the bore. Now the rifle should come straight back. Less stress on the scope, less influence on the rifle by the bags. But if the pundits are right, you also lose the ability to tune the barrel for velocity variations. Ah. But if the barrel taper can be reversed, gravity will pull the muzzle down rather more, allowing for some upward motion when fired. How will that interact with the equal center of gravity? I don't know.
All sorts of stocks become possible, such as Shelly Davidson's tinker-toy (without the need & perhaps compromises to stay legal with current rules). Or, a barrel blocked rifle, where the scope is on the block, and where the block, or a short extension, serves as the forearm.
Nor would these designs make a rifle a bench rifle only. Not that hard to make a shoulder fired rifle with these designs, if they prove to have advantages.
Etc.
