Based on the description, I would advise you to sleep on it, suck it up, respond to the reviewers, revise the paper, and submit your revision to the journal.
Yes, reviewers can be absolutely, disgustingly, and unnecessarily rude and mean. Read their review, filter their non-technical rants, keep whatever helpful criticism you can extract from their comments, and address them nicely and respectfully. It may actually be that the techniques you used were adequate but you failed to point out why and how it would be unnecessary to use more expensive methods. Always assume that they are right. If they are mistaken, respectfully point out in your response why you are right and edit the original manuscript to make the issue clearer to future readers.
For instance, if the reviewer wrote:
The methods used in the paper are abysmal. The authors use an outdated
and archaic method, which is also very uncertain, to measure the mass
of the frogs, which is by weighting them on a scale. The atomic mass
interferometer, which uses gravitational waves and is able to
precisely infer mass with an uncertainty of one atomic mass unit per kilogram,
is the state of the art in weighting.
You can write as a response:
The reviewer is absolutely correct that atomic mass interferometry
(AMI) is the state of the art in weighting. However, we opted to use
analytical scales to measure the mass of the frogs because the mass
variations that we expected to measure are of at least 1 g, a quantity
signficantly higher than the uncertainty of even the most rudimentary
analytical scales. We do, however, agree, that the quantum mechanical
analysis of the molecular buildup in neural entangled channels in
during frog electrophoresis, which is suggested as an interesting
prospective investigation, will benefit from the low uncertainty
provided by AMI.
In order to make it clear that the methods used in our study were
adequate, we have modified the original manuscript to include the
following sentence in the second paragraph of page 5:
While there are more precise methods to infer mass, such as atomic
mass interferometry, analytical scales offer accuracies that are
compatible with the 1 g mass variations that were found in this study
(see Table 3, for instance).